

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

L| * j _ ('■' / 

@t|;i;r. ;Cojnjri3|t I}a. 

Shelf.... 

-s- 

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 





























A FEW TESTIMONIALS. 


The 1 *Arkansas Methodist,” of Little Rock, says: "The ‘Livesof 
the Twelve Apostles’ is one of the newest and most interesting 
books out. It is by a Texan, and full of interesting matter not 
found in any other book we have yet read.” 

The “American Baptist,” of St. Louis, says: “This new book, 
just from the press, was written by a Texas lawyer, D. B. Corley, of 
Abilene. It is intensely interesting. The author handles his sub¬ 
ject with an able pen. He analyzes it like a lawyer would a case 
in court. He is familiar with the lives of the men of whom he 
writes. If you have not a copy by all means send to him and 
get one.” 

Rev. W. E. Penn, the well-known evangelist of Eureka Spring, 
Ark., in a recent letter says: “1 have read your book, the ‘Lives 
of the Twelve Apostles,’ and I think it a useful b>ok, because it 
is a great time-saver with those who want to know anything about 
the Apostles. Those who read it carefully will want to read the 
New Testament again and again, to find out all they can about 
these wonderful characters.” 

Hon. K. K. Legett, of Abilene, Texas, says: “ I have seen and 
read with interest your little book styled Tivesof the Apostle.’ It 
is a matter of regret that such a work has not sooner been given to 
the public. If it could be read by every boy and girl in the whole 
land, its influence for good could scarcely be measured, and each 
parent owes it to his or her children to provide for them this book. 
It is a work of merit and will not suffer in comparison with literary 
productions which have achieved fame and reputation. It deserves 
an extensive circulation and will receive its rewards as its merits 
become known.” 














































































































































































































































































































































































































LIVES OF THE 


TWELVE APOSTLES 


COMPILEI^jtND WRITTEN BY 

1). B. CORLEY 

i » 

ABILENE, TEXAS 








^ c> 


Copyright, 1892, by D. B. Corley. 


Entered according to act of congress in the year eighteen hundred and 
ninety-one, by D, B. Corley, in the office of the Librarian 
of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 


LU& H 50. 


m 


INDEX 


INTRODUCTORY .11 

ANDREW -----.103 

Place of his Nativity.105 

His Meeting With Jesus.105 

His Subsequent Call to the Ministry.106 

Duly Commissioned to Teach.106 

Mention of An Apocryphal Acts Written by Him.107 

After the Day of Pentecost, he is Assigned to Duty in Scythia 

and Departs for That Country.108 

His Reception By a Wealthy Jew at Amynsus.108 

His Travels on Leaving Amynsus.100 

Arrives at Sinope where he Meets his Brother Peter.110 

Cruelty of the People of Sinope to Andrew.110 

He Establishes a Church There.110 

From Sinope he Returns home to Jerusalem After an Absence 

of Five Years.Ill 

After a Short Stay at Jerusalem he Departs Again and Travels 
Until Reaching Petrse, Where he is Arrested, Tried and Con¬ 
demned. 113 

He Is Crucified.114 

He Salutes the Cross as he Approaches It.114 

Hangs Upon the Cross Two Days and then Dies.115 

His Body Taken Down and Buried by a Lady.115 

Afterwards Removed by Constantine and Re-interred in a Church 

at Constantinople.116 

Mary Magdalene’s Remains Interred in the Same Church.116 

BARTHOLOMEW .151 

Evidence of Family Culture.151 

Unwillingness to Accept his Brother’s Statement Regarding the 
Messiah.153 


7 


























8 


INDEX 


He and his Brothar Philip and Sister Mariamne Meet at Hierapc- 

lis in Phrygia Where Philip is Killed. 

He is Afterwards Killed at Albanople in Great Armenia. 

His Sister Mariamne.. 

JESUS CHRIST - . 


154 

155 
155 

10 


He Was the Son of Mary, Who was the Daughter of Joachim 

and Anna. . 

At his Birth Joseph Seeks a Hebrew Midwife... 

Salome is Present ... 

He Enters the Ministry in the Spring of A. D. 30. 

His Arrest, Condemnation and Crucifixion. 

Crucified Between Two Thieves. Their Names and the Offense 

for Which They Were Condemned.'• 

The Gnostic Theory of When, Where and How He Became Po- 

sessed of Divinity. 

His Divinity. 

His Second Coming. 

The Evil of Would-be Prophets Fixing a Particular Day For the 


21 

27 

28- 

31 


33 


30 

34 

40 


Second Coming. 

The Light in Which a Person Should Look at the Second Com¬ 
ing. ...... 

JAMES THE GREAT . 


40 

41 
117 


He First Preaches to the Dispersed Jews and Afterwards Visits 

Spain. 

Returns to Jerusalem. 

His Death by Herod’s Order. 

Biblical Account of Herod’s Death and That Given by Josephus 
Compared... .. • • • 


119 

120 
121 

122 


JOHN . 187 

His Presence at the Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.133 

Remained at Jerusalem Fifteen Years After the Crucifixion... .139 

Visits Asia; his Labors There.140 

Arrested and Sent Bound to Rome. Tried and Banished to Pat 

mos ....140 

His Release and Return to Ephesus.141 

Writes his Gospel at Ephesus and Dies There.112 

Some Comments Upon the Close of his Gospel.ill 




























INDEX 


d 

JAMES THE LESS .173 

His Parentage. 175 

Is Made Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem.177 

Spends the Remainder of his Life There.177 

His Death.179 

JUDE - - -.183 

His Travels.187 

His Death.187 

JUDAS ISCARIOT - 193 

He is the Treasurer of the Party. 195 

John Charges him with Being a Thief.195 

His Betrayal of Christ.198 

Probable Causes Thereof.205 

His Death. 199 

He Hanged Himself Upon a Fig-tree.199 

Statements of Matthew and Luke Regarding his Death Harmon¬ 
ize .200 

His Ultimate Salvation.207 

What Adam Clarke Says of his Probable Salvation.216 

JOSEPHUS .227 

What he Said Concerning Jesus Christ.237 

What he Said of John the Baptist.238 

What About James the Less.,. .238 

Josephus as a General...236 

His Military Genius.... .236 

MATTHEIV .s - - - - 165 

His Call to the Ministry.167 

The Occasion of his Writing his Gospel. 169 

Leaves Judea.170 

His Death.170 

MATTHIAS .223 

His Election to the Office of an Apostle.225 

The Legality of this Election Discussed.226 

His Travels.228 

His Death.220 

PHILIP .125 

His Call.127 



































10 


INDEX 


Was the First Apostle Called.128 

His Education.128 

The Jewish System of Education at the Time.129 

His Travels and Preaching.134 

His Death and Burial.135 

His Sister Mariamne.135 

PETER .43 

The Place of his Birth and Names of his Parents. 45 

His Wife’s Name and Mention of his Daughter. 45 

His Denial. 49 

He Admits Cornelius Into the Church and is Reproved For It.. 83 

His Visit to Antioch. 86 

Supposed to have Spent a Good Portion of his Time in Baby¬ 
lon . 96 

His Visit to Rome. 96 

Arrested and Thrown Into Prison at Rome With St. Paul. 97 

Spends the Winter in Prison. 98 

He and Paul Taken Out of Prison and Executed the Same Day. 99 

His Burial.101 

His Remains Removed and Re-interred.101 

SIMON .189 

His Travels. 192 

His Death and Burial. 192 

THOMAS . 157 

Some Remarks Concerning his Doubts.160 

He Baptizes the Wise Men of the East Who Came at the Birth 

of the Savior to See Him.162 

He Reaches India in his Travels .162 

His Death and Burial There.163 


























INTRODUCTORY 


In presenting this little volume to the public, I 
deem it a duty to give my reason for doing so. 

The lives of the twelve apostles are something that 
almost everybody in all Christian lands loves to read. 
It is through them that we get our plan of salvation, 
and since it comes to us through them, it is natural 
on our part to want to know everything we possibly 
can of them. Since our Christianity rests on a basis 
of historic fact, it becomes all-important to us to 
know all that possibly can be known about the credi¬ 
bility of the reporters of those facts. 

If they, after writing our gospel law, themselves 
lived up to that law, in the manner in which they say 
we should, then it goes to prove that they were truly 
sincere in what they left for us to be governed by. 
The object of this book is to show that they did. 
That they had the faith and practiced that charity 
which they recommended us to have and to practice. 

The mind of man ever has and ever will inquire 
into the credibility of these twelve men. And as 
only five of them left us any writing by which we can 
judge of their purposes, we have to recur to history 
to learn of their practices. 

In doing this it has been necessary to consult many 
histories, and to take the parts that each gives and 
11 


12 


INTRODUCTORY 


put them together, and thus make the whole of an 
individual’s history; or at least a greater part of it. 
It frequently occurs that from one historian I get a 
description of one of the apostles’ personal appear¬ 
ance, from another I learn of his birth and educa¬ 
tion, from another something of his family relations, 
and from another what country or countries he vis¬ 
ited, and from another what country he died in and 
the manner of that death and so on. These discon¬ 
nected sketches of their lives and doings were written 
at the time by men who only wrote what they knew 
of them. Hence the historian might be able to tell 
only a small part of a man’s history, and yet tell the 
truth, and tell it in such a manner that unconnected 
with some other fact or part of the individual’s life or 
history, it would be uninteresting, and therefore would 
pass unnoticed. It has been my object to collect and 
connect all the information relative to them, that I 
could for this little book, and while there is a great 
deal that would be of vast interest to us that is still 
missing, it is hoped enough has been collected and 
arranged to interest, attract and instruct you while 
reading it. 

My chief reason for writing this book is to collect 
and condense the information, from a library that is 
so costly that but few can enjoy it, to a little book 
so cheap that all who desire can have it. 

Having given my reason for writing it, let me next 
acquaint you with an incident preceding my under¬ 
taking it. In the spring of 188 —, it was my pleas¬ 
ure on one occasion to have quite a lengthy and 



INTRODUCTORY 


13 


spirited conversation with a lady of Catholic inclina¬ 
tions and persuasions. The subject we were discuss- 
sing was that of putting young girls into nunneries and 
making nuns of them. And strange to say that she, 
being the mother of several beautiful young girls, 
advocated sending one or more of them to be educa¬ 
ted as nuns. This position was attacked with all the 
force I could summon; knowing that the Roman 
Catholic church held St. Peter in high esteem, I took 
occasion to tell her that if he was worthy to be fol¬ 
lowed in spiritual matters, he was also worthy 
to be imitated in wordly matters. And I reminded 
her of the fact that he had married a girl not yet 
grown to full womanhood, and mentioned his wife’s 
name, etc. I also alluded to the fact of another one 
of the apostles marrying and raising a large family 
of girls, and where and how they spent their lives; 
and, in fact, I detailed in that conversation a great 
deal of the apostles’ family histories, their fates and 
their final doom. Finally, the lady’s little daughter, 
a beautiful girl of thirteen years, who had listened to 
all of the conversation with the greatest interest pos¬ 
sible, rose from her seat and coming to me, exclaimed: 
“Where did you learn all that? Oh, for a little book, 
out of which I could learn all that you have told me.” 

The evening passed and I returned to my room, but 
the expression of that sweet-faced girl seemed to hang 
about me for days and days. And her words: “Oh, 
for a little book, out of which I could learn all that 
you have told me,” continued to revolve themselves 
in my mind, until they awakened in me a recollection 


14 


INTRODUCTORY 


of the many expressions that I had heard of a kindred 
nature, in both cottage homes and around the camp¬ 
fires of many a western camp. Added to this was the 
further thought, that the little girl had voiced the 
wish of a million of other girls in this land; to-wit: 
to learn all they could about the twelve apostles; 
The lives they led and lived, the various pursuits and 
callings in which they embarked, and finally the 
deaths they died. It was then that I determined to 
undertake the task of collecting from both the Bible 
and history, such information concerning them as I 
regarded as authentic, and to place it in a little book 
and then place that book within the reach of all. 

This I have done; and while writing it have felt 
that, upon the one hand, many an aged grandmother 
seated in her big arm-chair in the corner, by the aid 
of her spectacles, would peruse its pages to her con¬ 
solation and spiritual gratification. Upon the other 
hand, I also felt that its pages will be lit up and read 
by the dripping tallow candle of many a miner’s camp, 
where the boys, by reason of the circumstances are 
virtually precluded from carrying more voluminous 
and costlier volumes, upon which to while away a leis¬ 
ure hour now and then. There is something in that 
something which we would know, that whets the keen 
edge of inquiry as to any fact pertaining to those 
from whom we receive our plan of salvation. 

Further, should it become the means of arraigning 
the unconverted mind to a realization of the facts, of 
their respective histories as a fact, I shall myself feel 
richly rewarded for all my work. For the reason that 


INTRODUCTORY 


15 


man brought this far, and then turned loose will of 
himself go further, and inquire as to the reason why 
they did as they did do. That is, why did they live 
the lives and die the deaths they did? The answer 
that will always come to such an inquirer is, it was 
their faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ that made 
them do it. 

If I, by history, can show that these twelve men, 
who on account of the peculiar and particular rela¬ 
tion and association with Jesus Christ, knew more of 
him than all the rest of mankind ever did or ever can 
know, and that they also had a stronger faith in him 
than any other twelve have ever had, I shall feel 
that I have shown to you another reason not embod¬ 
ied in the Bible, as to why you should place your faith 
in him also. And should I do this, I shall certainly 
feel that I have achieved a victory of no mean pro¬ 
portion. 

On the other hand I can only add, that I deeply 
regret that so important a part of the very founda¬ 
tion of our plan of salvation as the lives of its authors 
has been so long neglected, that there is now but 
little known of them. 

There is, however, enough known of them, and 
here produced in this small volume to convince a fair- 
minded man that they, the twelve apostles, after having 
had all the opportunities offered them, in three years of 
constant, close and intimate association, to detect the 
fact that Christ was an imposition and a fraud, if he 
had been one, did on the contrary believe and pro¬ 
claim to the world that he was the Christ, the prom- 


16 


INTRODUCTORY 


ised Messiah. And that they, each of them, not only 
maintained this belief during their lives, but that 
they cherished it to the day of their deaths and then 
died in that belief. 

Now a word in regard to the authenticity of this 
compiled history, that I am about to submit to you. 
It is and will be claimed by some, that owing to'the 
T great antiquity of it, together with the great religious 
fights and persecutions that have since grown out of 
a construction of their Divine writings, that their pri¬ 
vate personal histories have also been tampered with, 
since they were first written. I do not believe it, for 
the reason that there has been no occasion for altering 
or in anywise changing them. The fight between 
the churches of the earth, since their day and time, 
has been over a construction of their Divine writings, 
and not over their personal histories. 

There are other personal histories in existence to¬ 
day much older than these. Take for example that 
of Julius Caesar. He died or rather was assassinated 
44 years before Christ was born into the world. His 
personal history was written and has descended all 
along down to us, and such implicit confidence is 
placed in its authenticity that it is at present taught 
in all the high schools of the world. The young men 
of the different nations of the earth are taught among 
other things, to translate Caesar, from the original to 
their respective tongues. No one offers for a moment 
to doubt the correctness of Caesar’s history. 

Take next for example the history of St. Peter. 
He died or was crucified in A. D. 64 , just 108 years 


INTRODUCTORY 


11 

after or later than the death of Caesar. Now the 
history of Peter has had 108 years less time in which 
to become confused and tampered with than that of 
Caesar. The history of all the apostles is at least 78 
years later in point of time than that of Caesar. 

The twelve apostles were prominent as the head 
and leaders of a religion that was revolutionizing the 
world at the time. Caesar was prominent as a politi¬ 
cian and military leader. After their deaths their 
respective historians saw fit to chronicle their deaths, 
histories and so forth. I am of the opinion that both 
are correct. 


t **’ 























\ 










JESUS CHRIST 

















V 



























































































































JESUS 


CHRIST. 


Reproduction of the Celebrated Painting 


by Carlo Dolce. 










JESUS CHRIST 


Jesus Christ, the son of the Virgin Mary, who was 
the daughter of Joachim and Anna, was the central 
figure of the apostolic age, and the headlight of our 
present civilization and future salvation. He is con¬ 
tra-distinguished from all other beings who ever lived 
upon the globe that have acted in the sphere of either 
man or God, by the distinguishing characteristic, that 
the longer the space of time intervening between the 
time of his birth and the present, the more widely does 
he become known. The recollection of other gods fade 
from the memory of men in the long march of time. 
His widens and brightens, and is surely shadowing 
those who lived both before and after him. 

He was born at Bethlehem in Judea. But the 
date of that birth may truly be said to be lost for¬ 
ever. Neither the day nor the year can now be deter¬ 
mined. The incidents of it are dimly outlined in the 
Bible. Numerous traditional histories describe his 
birth in divers ways. But our best scholars are in¬ 
clined to regard them as spurious productions. It 
may be that some one of them is correct. I have 
selected that one which I consider the most likely to 
be correct, and here submit it to you. My reason 
for placing more confidence in it than any other is a 
two-fold one: ist—Because it was accepted as the 
21 


22 


JESUS CHRIST 


truth for the first 325 years after it happened, by 
those people who knew more about it than anybody 
else; 2d—It sounds like persons would have talked 
under the circumstances. It is common sense. 

In the Apocryphal New Testament, published by 
Gebbie & Company, of Philadelphia, in the book of 
“The Protevangelion,” we find the following: 

chapter x 

And when her sixth month was come, Joseph re¬ 
turned from his building houses abroad, which was his 
trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin 
grown big: 

2. Then smiting upon his face, he said: With 
what face can I look up to the Lord, my God? or 
what shall I say concerning this young woman? 

3. For I received her a virgin out of the temple of 
the Lord my God, and have not preserved her such! 

4. Who has thus deceived me? Who has com¬ 
mitted this evil in my house, and seducing the virgin 
from me, hath defiled her? 

5. Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished 
in me? 

6. For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent 
came and found Eve alone and seduced her. 

7. Just after the same manner it has happened to 
me. 

8. Then Joseph, arising from the ground, called 
her, and said, O, thou who hast been so much favored 
by God, why hast thou done this? 

9. Why hast thou debased thy soul, who wast edu- 


JESUS CHRIST 


23 


cated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food 
from the hand of angels? — 

10. But she with a flood of tears, replied, I am 
innocent and have known no man. 

11. Then said Joseph, How comes it to pass you are 
with child? 

12. Mary answered, As the Lord my God liveth, 
I know not by what means. 

13. Then Joseph was exceedingly afraid, and went 
away from her, considering what he should do with 
her; and he thus reasoned with himself: (1) 

14. If I conceal her crime, I shall be found guilty 
by the law of the Lord; 

15. And if I discover her to the children of Israel, 
I fear, lest she being with child by an angel, I shall 
be found to betray the life of an innocent person: 

16. What therefore shall Ido? I will privately dis¬ 
miss her. 

17. Then the night was come upon him, when 
behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a 
dream, and said, 

18. Be not afraid to take that young woman, for 
that which is within her is of the Holy Ghost; 

19. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt 
call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from 
their sins. 

20. Then Joseph arose from his sleep, and glorified 
the God of Israel, who had shown him such favor, 
and preserved the virgin. 


1. See Matt, i, 18. 


24 


JESUS CHRIST 


CHAPTER XI 

Then came Annas the scribe, and said to Joseph, 
Wherefore have we not seen you since your return? 

2. And Joseph replied, Because I was weary after 
my journey, and rested the first day. 

3. But Annas turning about perceived the virgin 
big with child. 

4. And went away to the priest, and told him. 
Joseph in whom you placed so much confidence, is 
guilty of a notorious crime, in that he hath defiled 
the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the 
Lord, and hath privately married her, not discovering 
it to the children of Israel. 

5. Then said the priest, Hath Joseph done this? 

6. Annas replied, If you send any of your servants, 
you will find that she is with child. 

7. And the servants went and found it as he said. 

8. Upon this both she and Joseph were brought to 
their trial and the priest said unto her, Mary, what 
hast thou done? 

9. Why hast thou debased thy soul, and forgot thy 
God, seeing thou wast brought up in the Holy of 
Holies, and didst receive thy food from the hands of 
angels, and heardest their songs? 

10. Why hast thou done this? 

11. To which with a flood of tears she answered, 
As the Lord my God liveth, I am innocent in his 
sight, seeing I know no man. 

12. Then the priest said to Joseph, Why hast 
thou done this? 


JESUS CHRIST 


25 


13. And Joseph answered, As the Lord my God 
liveth, I have not been concerned with her. 

14. But the priest said, Lie not, but declare the 
truth; thou hast privately married her, and not dis¬ 
covered it to the children of Israel, and humbled thy¬ 
self under the mighty hand (of God), that thy seed 
might be blessed. 

15. And Joseph was silent. 

16. Then said the priest (to Joseph) You must 
restore to the temple of the Lord the virgin which 
you took thence. 

17. But he wept bitterly, and the priest added, I 
will cause you both to drink the water of the Lord, 
(1) which is for trial, and so your iniquity shall be 
laid open before you. 

18. Then the priest took the water, and made 
Joseph drink, and sent him to a mountainous place. 

19. And he returned perfectly well, and all the 
people wondered that his guilt was not discovered. 

20. So the priest said, Since the Lord hath not 
made your sins evident, neither do I condemn you. 

21. So he sent them away. 

22. Then Joseph took Mary, and went to his 
house, rejoicing and praising the God of Israel. 

CHAPTER XII 

And it came to pass, that there went forth a 
decree (2) from the Emperor Augustus that all the 

1. Num. v., 18. 


sj.Luke ii., i. 


26 JESUS CHRIST 

Jews should be taxed, who were of Bethlehem in 
Judea: 

2. And Joseph said, I will take care that my chil¬ 
dren be taxed; but what shall I do with this young 
woman? 

3. To have her taxed as my wife I am ashamed; 
and if I tax her as my daughter; all Israel knows she 
is not my daughter. 

4. When the time of the Lord’s appointment shall 
come, let him do as seems good to him. 

5. And he saddled the ass and put her upon it, and 
Joseph and Simon followed after her, and arrived at 
Bethlehem within three miles. 

6. Then Joseph turning about saw Mary sorrowful, 
and said within himself, Perhaps she is in pain 
through that which is within her. 

7. But when he turned about again he saw her 
laughing, and said to her, 

8. Mary, how happens it, that I sometimes see 
sorrow, and sometimes laughter and joy in thy coun¬ 
tenance? 

9. And Mary replied to him, I see two people with 
mine eyes, the one weeping and mourning, the other 
laughing and rejoicing. 

10. And he went again across the way, and Mary 
said to Joseph, Take me down from the ass, for that 
which is in me presses to come forth. 

11. But Joseph replied, Whither shall I take thee? 
for the place is desert. 

12. Then said Mary again to Joseph, Take me 
down, for that which is within me mightily presses me. 


JESUS CHRIST 


27 


13. And Joseph took her down. 

14. And he found there a cave and let her into it. 

CHAPTER XIII 

And leaving her and his sons in the cave, Joseph 
went forth to seek a Hebrew midwife in the village of 
Bethlehem. 

2. But as I was going (said Joseph) I looked up 
into the air, and I saw the clouds astonished, and the 
fowls of the air stopping in the midst of their flight. 

3. And I looked down toward the earth, and saw 
a table spread, and working people sitting around it, 
but their hands were upon the table, and they did not 
move to eat. 

4. They who had meat in their mouths did not 
eat. 

5. They who lifted their hands up to their heads 
did not draw them back: 

6. And they who lifted them up to their mouths 
did not put anything in; 

7. But all their faces were fixed upward. 

8. And i beheld the sheep dispersed, and yet the 
sheep stood still. 

9. And the shepherd lifted up his hand to smite 
them, and his hand continued up. 

10. And I looked unto a river, and saw the kids 
with their mouths close to the water, and touching 
it, but they did not drink. 

CHAPTER XIV 

Then I beheld a woman coming down from the 


28 JESUS CHRIST 

mountains, and she said to me, Where art thou 
going, O man? 

2. And I said to her, I go to inquire for a Hebrew 
midwife. 

3. She replied to me, Where is the woman that is 
to be delivered? 

4. And I answered, In the cave, and she is be¬ 
trothed to me. 

5. Then said the midwife, Is she not thy wife? 

6. Joseph answered, It is Mary, who was educated 
in the Holy of Holies, in the house of the Lord, and 
she fell to my lot, and is not my wife, but has con¬ 
ceived by the Holy Ghost. 

7. The midwife said, Is this true? 

8. He answered, Come and see. 

9. And the midwife went along with him, and stood 
in the cave. 

10. Then a bright cloud overshadowed the cave, 
and the midwife said, This day my soul is magnified, 
for mine eyes have seen surprising things, and salva¬ 
tion is brought forth to Israel. 

11. But on a sudden the cloud became a great light 
in the cave, so that their eyes could not bear it. 

12. But the light gradually decreased, until the 
infant appeared and sucked the breast of his mother 
Mary. 

13. Then the midwife cried out, and said, How 
glorious a day is this, wherein mine eyes have seen 
this extraordinary sight! 

14. And the midwife went out from the cave, and 
Salome met her, 


JESUS CHRIST 


29 


15. And the midwife said to her, Salome, Salome, 
I will tell you a most surprising thing which I saw. 

16. A virgin hath brought forth, which is a thing 
contrary to nature. 

17. To which Salome replied, As the Lord my God 
liveth, unless I receive particular proof of thi$ mat¬ 
ter, 1 will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth. 

18. Then Salome went in, and the midwife said, 
Mary, shew thyself, for a great controversy is risen 
concerning thee. 

19. And Salome received satisfaction. 

20. But her hand was withered and she groaned 
bitterly. 

21. And she said, Woe to me, because of mine iniq¬ 
uity; for I have tempted the living God, and my 
hand is ready to drop off. 

22. Then Salome made her supplication to the 
Lord, and said, O, God of my fathers, remember me, 
for I am of the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and 
Jacob. 

23. Make me not a reproach among the children 
of Israel, but restore me. sound to my parents. 

24. For thou well knowest, O Lord, that I have 
performed many offices of charity in thy name, and 
have received my reward from thee. 

25. Upon this an angel of the Lord stood by 
Salome; and said, The Lord God hath heard thy 
prayer, reach forth thy hand to the child, and carry 
him, and by that means thou shalt be restored. 

26. Salome, filled with exceeding joy, went to the 
child, and said, I will touch him: 


30 


JESUS CHRIST 


27. And she purposed to worship him, for she said, 
This is a great king which is born in Israel. 

28. And straightway Salome was cured. 

29. Then the midwife went out of the cave, being 
approved by God. 

30. And lo! a voice came to Salome, Declare not 
the strange things which thou hast seen, till the child 
shall come to Jerusalem. 

31. So Salome also departed, approved by God. 

There is something of historic prominence in the 
fact, that at his birth old time ceased to run, and new 
time began. In other words, his advent into the 
world cut time in two, and gave to it an ending on the 
one hand and a beginning on the other, which it did 
not have before. And I will add that, as I under¬ 
stand it, his advent into the world cut our Bible in two 
right where we now have the Old and the New Tes¬ 
taments joined together. That with one hand he 
closed the Old part, saying “thou art fulfilled;” with 
the other he opened the New Testament and handed 
it to the world through his apostles, saying, this shall 
be your law in the future. 

The town of Bethlehem where he was born is one 
of the oldest towns in Palestine. It is sometimes 
called Ephrath and sometimes the city of ^David and 
Bethlehem in the Old Bible. But since the birth 
of our Saviour, it has borne the single name of Beth¬ 
lehem. It has quite a history of its own, being the 
birthplace of King David and the place where his 
early youth was spent, and also the home of Ruth, etc. 


JESUS CHRIST 


81 


We are told by the ancient historians that the exact 
place where the Saviour was born was marked and 
remembered by the inhabitants of Bethlehem at the 
time; and that the Emperor Hadrian, in order to keep 
the knowledge of the place alive in the minds of the 
people, planted a grove of Adonis there in A. D. 135, 
and that it grew and remained there until A. D. 315. 
But at this time the grove was destroyed and the 
place soon faded from the knowledge of the people, 
and was finally entirely forgotten. 

The town is, however still standing as a town, and is 
visited almost as frequently by tourists as any other 
place in Judea. It has about 3000 inhabitants, at 
present, and is situated about six miles from Jerusa¬ 
lem, on the east of the main road running from Jeru¬ 
salem to Hebron. It is situated upon a lime-rock 
hill(i). 

As we are all acquainted with the history of Christ 
from his birth until he was twelve years old, we will 
pass that portion of his life by, and only say that 
our not having any history of him whatever from 
this time for the next eighteen years is one of the 
strangest things in all human affairs that has ever 
been brought to my notice. 

The next we see of him is his entering the ministry 
in the spring of A. D. 30. Being familiar with this 
ministry we will pass it by, until we see him enter¬ 
ing into Jerusalem on an ass. This entry so made is 
styled his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. It was 
on Sunday morning, March 29, A. D. 33. We have 

1. See Dr. Wm. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 


32 


JESUS CHRIST 


a full account of him in the New Testament from 
this day until the day of his arrest in Gethsemane’s 
garden, which was the following Thursday evening, 
April 2d, A. D. 33. 

Immediately after his arrest, he was carried before 
the Jewish Sanhedrim, a court of about the same ju¬ 
risdiction as a district court for Texas has at present. 
The presiding judge of this court was one Joseph 
Caiaphas (1). He was here tried and condemned 
to death. But before his death-sentence could be 
carried into execution, it had to be affirmed by a 
higher court. 

On the following morning, April, the third, he was 
arraigned before this higher court or Court of Appeals 
in Jerusalem, over which one Pontius Pilate presided 
as judge. This man Pilate was evidently a man who 
was competent to sit in such a case, for the reason 
that Christ was being tried upon a religious issue, for 
neither side of which Pilate had either respect or 
favoritism. He appears from all accounts to have 
taken up the case and to have investigated it to his 
full satisfaction, and then to have decided that he, 
Christ, was not guilty. However, like other judges 
have done since then, he, after arriving at a just ver¬ 
dict and so pronouncing it, was forced by the ignorant 
and prejudiced populace, to reverse his decision of 
“innocent” and write that of “guilty” in its stead. 
This is wherein Pilate did wrong. While he was 
a man who was fully capable of judging between 
right and wrong, he was not a man of sufficient firm- 


1 . See Dr. Wra, Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 


JESUS CHRIST 


ness to carry that judgment into execution over the 
opposition it met. So soon as this second judgment 
was rendered by him, the exultant people rushed the 
prisoner along to the place of his execution. 

As we are all familiar with the manner of his cru¬ 
cifixion I will mention but one part of it. We 
are told in the New Testament that Christ was cruci¬ 
fied between two thieves. 

These two thieves were the followers of one Jesus 
Barabbas, who, with themselves, had been captured 
and tried before the same authority that had just 
tried Christ, and by that authority had been con¬ 
demned to death by crucifixion, and the day of the 
execution had been fixed for Friday, April the 3d, A. D. 
33, it being the same day upon which Christ was 
crucified. But upon that day Jesus Barabbas was 
taken out and released and Jesus Christ placed in his 
stead. 

We sometimes hear it said that these thieves were 
placed upon either side of the Saviour in order to ex¬ 
press the disgust and contempt which the people had 
for him. But there is nothing in this, as the script¬ 
ure which says, “and He was numbered with the 
transgressors,” could be and was fulfilled to the 
letter, without the people or executioners of the Sav¬ 
iour meaning any derision or contempt toward him 
at the time. 

These two men were doomed to die that day and 
that by crucifixion. The death sentence had already 
been pronounced upon them, and had the authorities 
failed to catch Christ and try and condemn him as 


34 


JESUS CHRIST 


they did, then these thieves would have been crucified 
upon either side of Barabbas instead of Christ and 
we would have never heard of any derision or con¬ 
tempt in the matter. 

The one crucified upon his right hand was named 
Zoathan,and the one upon his left Chammatha (i). 

Having briefly sketched the life of the Saviour, let 
us next consider another and a much more important 
feature of his; that is, his divinity. Was he divine 
or not? This is the question. And as St. Paul truly 
said, if he was not divine, then is all our preaching 
vain. While this question is an old one, it is never¬ 
theless one that must of necessity be forever before 
the mind of man; and one that is always being deter¬ 
mined by man, for the reason that no one generation 
of people can determine it for another generation, 
nor can one man decide it for another at any time. 

This is the pivotal point of our religion, with¬ 
out which we would have no religion, and in 
making inquiry as to whether he was a divine being 
or not, I would have you bear in mind, that the 
question is not where, when or how he became pos¬ 
sessed of that divinity, but did he possess it at all? 
If after examination a man should determine that he 
was divine, he could then account for that divinity by 
simply concluding that it pleased Almighty God for 
it to be so. 

In determining this question there are two classes 

x. See Adam Clarke’s Commentaries on Mark 15-27, for the names. Also 
see Dr. Wm. Smith’s Bible Dictionary on the word “ thieves” as to- the sense 
in which we understand the term to-day. It was the one upon his right hand 
that was pardoned. See the Apocryphal New Testament, Nicodemus 7: 11. 


JESUS CHRIST 


35 


sf evidences to be admitted. The one direct, the 
other circumstantial. The direct evidence is what 
we find written of him in the New Testament. The 
circumstantial evidence is that evidence which a man 
finds by reading the lives of the apostles and seeing 
if the five of them who wrote books for our govern¬ 
ment and guidance, did themselves live up to what 
they in those books said that we should live up to. 
If in reading the lives of them we find that they did 
themselves live up to and practice, what they said 
that we should live up to and practice, then we will 
be forced to the conclusion that they were sincere in 
what they wrote, and did themselves believe it. That 
is that he was divine. 

Further, if we find in addition to this, that the 
other seven apostles, who did not leave us any writ¬ 
ten evidence upon the subject, did, however, like the 
five who did write, live up to that written require¬ 
ment, then this would be a strong circumstance tend¬ 
ing to show that they also believed as the five had 
written that we should believe. This would give us 
a clear idea of what all twelve of these men, who 
knew more about Christ than all the rest of the world, 
thought of his divinity. 

By this method of procedure we convert the 
twelve apostles into twelve witnesses of whom we 
make inquiry as to the truth of what five of their 
number had already written. Now, if they all testify 
by their lives and teachings and by their deaths that 
the five who did write saying that he was divine, did 
also write the truth, then we should accept it as a 


30 JESUS OHRIST 

fact established by fair and legal testimony, that ho 
was divine. 

The question of how or when he became possessed 
of that divinity, is of no importance to us. There 
has been a great deal of time, material and feeling 
wasted over this point, and no good whatever accom¬ 
plished by it. The Gnostics have held from the day 
of his baptism, that he was the son of Joseph and 
Mary, and that he was nothing but a good man 
specially intended by God for the Messiahship; and 
that he was never invested with divine powers until 
the time of his baptism. That at that time the Holy 
Ghost descending in the shape of a dove entered into 
him and he thereby became all powerful as was dem¬ 
onstrated by him the next three years of his life. 
They further maintain and claim that during these 
three years of his ministry that he was God in human 
form. That on the night of the arrest, the 'bloody 
sweat which he had, was caused by the Holy Ghost 
or divinity which he possessed withdrawing and sepa¬ 
rating itself from him, and leaving him as the man 
Christ to die on the following day. This theory of 
theirs would at least give him a natural birth. 

There is something strange and strikingly peculiar, 
in the language used by Christ in both his prayer in the 
garden and his agony expressed upon the cross. In 
the first instance, in his prayer in the garden we find 
him using this language, “O, my Father, if it be pos¬ 
sible let this cup pass from me! nevertheless not as I 
will, but as Thou wilt.” Showing clearly that there 
was a difference between Christ’s immediate in¬ 
clination and the Father’s present disposition. 


JESUS CHRIST 


8 1 

What that difference was we never can know. But 
that there was a difference is clearly established by 
the language used. Again, on the following day, and 
while he was suspended upon the cross, we hear him 
use these words, “My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me?” Indicating a going away—a with¬ 
drawal—a separation of his God from him. Further 
in the prayer in the garden the night before, it is 
“My Father,” now “My God.” Here is a change of 
language. Does it imply a disturbance of the rela¬ 
tion therebefore existing between them? 

As you are familiar with our theory of how he 
became possessed of that divinity, I will not repeat 
it here, but will say in lieu thereof that as for my 
part, I have no words to waste upon the defense of 
either of the theories. I frankly admit that I do not 
absolutely know that our theory is right, nor do I 
care to know anything about that part of it. The 
question with me all of my life, up to my conversion 
was, was he divine at all? and not where or how or 
when he got that divinity. Until this point is set¬ 
tled in a man’s mind, he can never accept Jesus Christ 
as his Saviour. It takes this much faith on our part 
before we can feel that he was lawfully authorized and 
empowered to enter into a contract with us for our 
ultimate salvation. And I maintain that if a man 
believes that he was divine, and is persistent in that 
belief that he will be saved, regardless of the kind or 
character of evidence that induces him to believe that 
fact. * 

We can prove by the evidences at our command 


38 


JESUS CHRIST 


that Jesus Christ once lived, and that he lived at the 
time that both the Bible and history says he lived. 
That he was the most miraculous person the world 
has ever produced. Nay, we can go further and close 
in on him from every side, and prove by fair and legit¬ 
imate testimony that he was one of two things, and 
we do it. This is getting very nearly the truth of 
the matter, when we can say he was this or that, and 
yet we can with propriety say it. This middle ground 
that men sometimes take, and say that he did and 
said all that he did, because he was a good man at 
heart, and in sympathy with the world, etc., etc., 
has no foundation whatever. There is no middle 
ground in it. He could not have been a good man 
and nothing more, and done what he did do. No 
good man would offer to deceive the people, and 
have them abandon the religion they were follow¬ 
ing, and take up one of his and follow it to their eter¬ 
nal destruction. Further, he not only told them to 
abandon their former religion and to embrace the one 
which he offered them, but threatened them with 
eternal damnation if they did not. Now could a good 
man conscientiously with his goodness do this? No; 
and it is useless to talk about it. So away with your 
good-man theories and arguments; there is nothing 
in them. I tell you that he was one of two things: 
that is, he was either the Messiah, or he was the most 
successful fraud that ever duped mankind. Which 
of these was he? Let us view them separately. 

i. If he was a fraud, he knew very well that 
by his persisting in his false statements, it would 


JESUS CHRIST 


39 


ultimately be the cause of his death. In fact he said 
that he would be killed and that it would be because 
of his claiming to be a divine being. He knew this, 
and yet he claimed divinity and lost his life on ac¬ 
count of it. For this claim on his part to be false, it 
would reverse the rule entirely. I have heard of 
and even known of men making false statements to 
save themselves; but I never heard or knew of one 
making a false statement, in order to have himself 
destroyed. The rule don’t run that way; men never 
make misrepresentations for the purpose of worsting 
their condition, and yet if he did, he did it for no 
other purpose than that of worsting his condition in 
this life, and sinking his soul into eternal perdition 
in the life to come. He could have had no other 
motive than this. There could be no other results 
hoped for. 

2. On the other hand, he claimed to be the divine 
one, and to have been sent upon a divine mission. 
Every act of his life and every word that ever escaped 
his lips point as unerringly to that divinity as does the 
needle to the Pole. He said that he was divine, his 
apostles said that he was divine, and by their lives 
left no doubt in our minds that they believed it. The 
historians say that he was divine; the prophecies of 
his own utterance that have been fulfilled since his 
death prove him to have been divine. He never 
claimed earth as his habitation; but always claimed 
to be only a visitor, and said that his visit would be 
of short duration. He further said that the object of 
that visit was'to place mankind upon a firm and solid 



40 


JESUS CHRIST 


foundation, and give them a chance to ultimately work 
out their own salvation. From the day that he put 
his hand to the lever and opened wide the throttle, 
mankind has rapidly advanced in everything that 
tends to ennoble and to better his condition, physic¬ 
ally, morally and spiritually. 

He said that he would come again, but did not fix 
the time of that coming. Nor is there any data at 
our command whereby we can even approximate the 
time. There is however a class of people who fre¬ 
quently pop out here and there, in the character of 
prophets, who claim to have by accident or otherwise 
detected the exact day upon which he will return to 
earth. And but for the fact that they announce their 
wonderful discoveries in a fifty-cent pamphlet, we 
might with propriety class them as either demented, 
or religious cranks. It is singular what a hold such 
literature takes upon given localities, when it is so 
frequently appearing and consequently as frequently 
proving itself false. I am not a very old man, and 
yet I think that I remember some dozen or more days 
that have passed in my time, that had been set apart 
by some would-be prophet for Christ to come again. 

There is nothing wrong in a person trying to find if 
they can by the Scripture or any other reliable source, 
some date that will justify their looking with a 
stronger faith at one time than at another for the 
second coming of the Saviour. In fact such researches 
prudently made are commendable. But to carry it 
to the extreme that of late years it is becoming popu¬ 
lar to carry it, by fixing a certain day, and putting 


JESUS CHRIST 


41 


out fifty-cent books by the hundreds of thousands to 
that effect, by which certain classes of people become 
so infatuated as to actually dispose of their worldly 
possession at ruinous rates, should be considered an 
unpardonable sin. 

I do not believe that any man knows or ever will 
know when He will come again; in fact, I doubt if 
he, Christ, at the time he said that he would come 
again, had fixed in his mind the particular time of re¬ 
turning. But that he will come again you may rest 
assured; and let me say to you now that the thing 
for you to look to, is to prepare and keep yourself in 
readiness for that coming, let it be when it may. It 
is my pleasure for him to exercise his pleasure, and to 
come next week, next year or next century. This is 
the point for us to watch, and not waste too much of 
our time in a kind of dreamy depicting of his coming 
and our having a personal meeting with him. I have 
never had the time or the disposition to build such 
fanciful air castles as this, and I hope that I never 
will. 

My pleasant meditations consist in this: I love to 
look forward to the time, when I will be fully en¬ 
franchised as a citizen in the heavenly kingdom. 
When my rights there will be as secure as his or any 
one else’s. When my citizenship cannot be questioned 
by any power in heaven or without. This is what 
he meant when he said that we who obeyed him, 
should become joint heirs with him in that kingdom. 

Let this be your day-theme and night-dream, and 
it will make a better Christian of you. Do your duty 


42 


JESUS CHRIST 


here and it will teach you that you have a right in 
the hereafter. Armed with such credentials, we have 
the right to demand admittance into heaven. Christ 
loves such a Christian as can demand an entrance 
into the kingdom, upon the ground that the appli¬ 
cant has fulfilled a contract which he, Christ, left 
here for him to fulfill. Educate yourselves that you 
have a right, and you will soon find yourself webbing 
and weaving the thread of time into a garment for 
the protection of that right. Teach yourselves that 
you are not worms of the dust, and that it is your priv¬ 
ilege to move in a higher and wider sphere than this. 

Incline your minds heavenward and ere long you 
can truly say that if your minds like your feet have 
left tracks, your tracks are all around and through the 
celestial city. 

The train that I am traveling on is made up of the 
doctrine incidentally mentioned thus far in this chap¬ 
ter. I am going through on it, and would be glad to 
have you accompany me. But should it be that you 
cannot do so presently, and should at some subse¬ 
quent period of your life make up your mind to come 
through, I would caution you to see that your ticket 
is countersigned by some one of the twelve apostles. 
There are, perhaps, others that would bring you 
through safely, but the?e are the safest. 


PETER 











ST. PETER. 

“ This portrait was copied, same sizeas the original, from the bottom 
of a gilded glass cup, found in the cataombs of St. Sebastian, at Rome.” 
The earliest interments by the Christians in the Roman catacombs 
included, besides Christian symbols, some objects of pagan regard. The 
absence of the nimbus (glory or circle) about the head of Peter may 
indicate the third century, or early in the fourth, for the nimbus was 
generally used around the heads of all saints and divine persons in the 
latter half of the fourth century. Tertullian speaks of glass cups as 
used in sacramental services, as also does Eusebius.”—Smith's Bible 
Dictionary. 

The greatest care possible has been exercised in collecting |the 
remaining portraits in this book from originals preserved by the 
Fathers. 








THE APOSTLE PETER 


This great apostle, whose name has been so freely 
handled by the different religious denominations, his¬ 
torians and divines, for the last eighteen centuries, 
was, like his brother Andrew, born at Bethsaida, on 
the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, called in 
their time the Lake of Genesareth. His father was 
named Jonas, his mother Johanna (i). He is rep¬ 
resented to us by both tradition and the early histori¬ 
ans as being a robust man, with a broad forehead and 
rather coarse features; an open, fearless counte¬ 
nance, short, thick gray hair, and short, thick, gray 
and curly beard, with a keen dark eye that flashed 
forth an impulsive spirit that well accorded with his 
after life. His face was pale, and at times betokened 
great mental anxiety (2). 

We are also told by Clement of Alexandria, and 
other ancient writers, that he was married at the time 
of his call to the ministry, and that his wife’s name 
was Perpetua; that he married when he himself was 
quite young, and that his wife was also very young; 
that she bore him a daughter and perhaps other 
children; and that she accompanied him in his apos¬ 
tolic journeyings and assisted him in preaching to and 

1. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. 

2 , Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p 200. 

45 


46 


PETER 


instructing the people, in regard to the gospel plan of 
salvation. That she was finally martyred by the bar¬ 
barous people, and that St. Peter was forced to be 
an eye-witness of her martyrdom. Neither the 
place of her martyrdom, the particular people who 
did it, nor the time of its occurrence are mentioned; 
nor do we strike a trace anywhere else of any of her 
children. Peter is said to have made a kind and in¬ 
dulgent husband and a loving and patient father (i). 

Whether he outlived all the other members of his 
family, or whether he left children living, is uncer¬ 
tain. Though it is the opinion of some that his wife 
and child or children were all dead long before his 
martyrdom. He, like his brother Andrew, was a dis¬ 
ciple of John the Baptist at the time of his call to the 
ministry by Jesus Christ (2). 

“He and his brother Andrew were partners of John 
and James, the sons of Zebedee, who had hired 
servants; and from various indications in the sacred 
narrative, we are led to the conclusion that their social 
position brought them in contact with men of 
education. The apostle did not live as a mere laboring 
man, in a hut by the seaside, but first at Bethsaida, 
and afterward in a house at Capernaum, belonging 
to himself or his mother-in-law, which must have 
been rather a large one, since he received in it not 
only our Lord and his fellow-diciples, but multitudes 
who were attraced by the miracles and preaching of 
Jesus. It is not probable that he and his brother 

x. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. 

2 . Ibid. 


were both uneducated. The statement in Acts iv., 13, 
that ‘the Council perceived they (i. e., Peter and 
John) were unlearned and ignorant men’ is not in¬ 
compatible with this assumption. 

“The translation of the passage in the A. V. is 
rather exaggerated, the word rendered ‘unlearned’ 
being merely equivalent to ‘layman,’ i. e., men of 
ordinary education, as contrasted with those who 
were specially trained in the schools of the rabbis. 
The language of the apostle was, of course, the 
form of Aramaic spoken in Northern Palestine, a sort 
of patois , partly Hebrew, but more nearly allied to 
the Syriac. It is doubtful whether our apostle was 
acquainted with Greek in early life. Within a few 
years after his call he seems to have conversed 
fluently in Greek with Cornelius. The style of both 
of Peter’s epistles indicates a considerable knowledge 
of the Greek—it is pure and accurate, and in gram¬ 
matical structure equal to that of Paul. That may, 
however, be accounted for by the fact, for which there 
is very ancient authority, that Peter employed an 
interpreter in the composition of his epistles, if not 
in his ordinary intercourse with foreigners. It is, on 
the whole, probable that he had rudimental knowledge 
of Greek in early life, which may have been after¬ 
ward extended when the need was felt.”— Dr. Win. 
Smith 1 s Bible Dictionary. 

Peter first met the Saviour at “Bethabara beyond 
Jordan,” where John was baptizing proselytes, and 
endeavoring to answer a deputation of Jews, who had 
been sent hither to him by the curious inquirers of 


48 


PETER 


Israel, to inquire of him concerning this new Messiah 
that appeared among them. To the same place the 
Saviour came from his forty days’ sojourn in the wil¬ 
derness after his baptism by John. After this meeting 
of Peter and Andrew and the Saviour, Peter and 
Andrew went probably first to Capernaum, and then 
to their fishing again on Lake Galilee. 

It was about one year after this before they were 
called to take up the ministry (i). Shortly after this 
call, Peter and his companions were engaged in dry¬ 
ing their nets in the morning, after an unsuccessful 
night of fishing, when our Saviour appeared on the 
shore followed by a large crowd of people who were 
eager to hear him preach. They pressed him so 
closely that he got into a boat and asked Peter to push 
off a little from the shore in order that he might in¬ 
struct the people who were now gathered in vast num¬ 
bers on the shore of the lake. Peter at once complied 
with his master’s request and our Saviour delivered 
his discourse to the people while he stood in the boat, 
and they upon the shore. As soon as he was through 
with his discourse to the people he told Peter to row 
his boat out a little farther, and to put out his net 
into the sea. To which Peter replied, that they had 
labored the preceding night and had taken nothing, 
and that if they could not succeed at night, there 
would be little or no showing to catch fish then, as 
the day was less suitable for fishing than the night. 
But as his Master had commanded, he obeyed, and 
let down the net, when to his astonishment, he had 

x. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 


PETER 


49 


caught more fish than he could land, and had to call 
to his companions to help him land them. 

Being now amazed at this miraculous draught of 
fishes, Peter recognizing that it was a miracle, fell 
prostrate before his Master’s feet, and said that he 
was too vile and sinful to be admitted into the pres¬ 
ence of one sent from God. But the Saviour paci¬ 
fied him by telling him that this miracle had only been 
wrought to confirm his faith, and to indicate to him, 
that the Almighty had intended him for a nobler call¬ 
ing in this life than fishing—that of saving the souls 
of men. 

From this time Peter appears to have been a con¬ 
stant attendant of the Saviour, submitting to his rules 
and obeying his instructions. Peter next saw the 
miraculous cure of his mother-in-law, and shortly 
after this went together with John and James, and 
witnessed the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the 
dead. 

The biblical account of this apostle being so full 
and complete from this event on, I deem it sufficient 
to pass on with my narrative of him, by saying that 
he was the constant associate of his Lord, from this 
time until the night of his Lord’s arrest in Gethsem- 
ane’s garden. Here he was and officiated in that 
affair in such a manner as to elicit the criticisms of 
many of the divines forever afterward. 

The cause of this criticism, as well as the severity 
of it, has ever been to me a strange thing. I see 
nothing in Peter’s conduct that night to warrant such 


50 


PETER 


criticism as we so frequently hear. First of all he 
had been informed in the early part of the night by 
his Lord, that before the cock crew, he would deny 
him thrice. This dumfounded the apostle, and it 
was enough to dumfound him. To suddenly and 
without a moment’s warning be notified that he, after 
three years of such faithful servitude in both soul and 
body, would deny his beloved Master in less time 
than eight hours. It*was more than his human nature 
could understand, and consequently he denied this. 
That is, said that he would not deny his Master. 

Since there has been so much said upon this point, 
let us look briefly into the matter ourselves, and then 
judge for ourselves how much of the bitter condem¬ 
nation that is hurled at him for this, is really merited 
by him. In Matt, xxvi., 34-35, we find this language: 
“Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that 
this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me 
thrice.” To which Peter replies in the following lan¬ 
guage: “Though I should die with thee, yet will I not 
deny thee.” 

This conversation occurred at that unknown house 
in Jerusalem, where Christ and his apostles had just 
taken the sacrament supper. As yet they had not 
gone to the garden of Gethsemane, nor did Peter at 
the time have any intimation of Christ’s intention to 
surrender both himself and them, to the enemy be¬ 
tween that time and the crowing of the cock. He 
knew nothing whatever of this, and consequently ac¬ 
counted that, for him to deny Christ between that 
time and the crowing of the cock, would be for him 


PETER 


51 


to voluntarily abandon all he had been taught in the 
last three years, and turn traitor and quit his party 
of his own inclination. 

It was in this sense that he looked at it; and hence 
he disputed with Christ and said, I will not do it; I 
will die first. Nor do we have any evidence that 
Peter would have ever denied a knowledge of Christ, 
or anything else pertaining to him, if he, Christ, had 
not interfered when the fight came up a little later 
on in Gethsemane’s garden, and to the utter aston¬ 
ishment and surprise of Peter, surrendered the whole 
party unconditionally into the hands of the enemy. 
I verily believe that had Christ not have done this, 
and let the matter take the course that Peter under¬ 
stood it was to take, at the time that he said he would 
die before he would deny him, that the morning sun 
would have rose and smiled down upon as brave a 
hero in Gethsemane’s garden, as ever died upon the 
fields of Waterloo or Thermopylae, whose lips had 
tasted death in preference to desertion or denial. 

He opened the fight, and he opened it in such a 
manner as to leave no doubt that he intended to de¬ 
fend his Master. He was actively engaged in chop¬ 
ping a soldier to pieces with his sword, when the com¬ 
mand came to “Put up again thy sword in its place.” 
Desist from further hostilities—ground arms—sur¬ 
render. 

In this affair we see him trying to ward off a band of 
soldiers, and trying it alone. He even goes so far as 
to wound a young officer by cutting off his ear. He 

was fighting, and fighting to death, to defend that 

4 __ 


52 


PETER 


Master just as he had said he would, but being of an 
obedient spirit when commanded, he obeyed and put 
up his sword. Jesus was now arrested and marched 
off to town to the court-house, and in this procession 
we find our hero, “following afar off”. That is to say 
that he was not in the midst of the crowd, but was 
following along behind them. 

Let us now look into the cause of his being “afar 
off.” A few moments ago he had violated the laws of 
Judea in two instances. First, by resisting an officer 
in the discharge of his lawful duty, in trying to effect 
an arrest of one Jesus of Nazareth. Secondly, by as¬ 
saulting that officer in a deadly manner with a deadly 
weapon, to wit, a sword, and doing him great bodily 
harm. With us to-day his offense would be called 
an assault with intent to murder. Having now vio¬ 
lated the laws of his country, and that, too, by severely 
wounding an officer, it behooved him to keep a re¬ 
spectful distance from that officer and his attendants. 

Hence the language “he followed afar off.” Yet so 
great was his love and so ardent his devotion for his 
Master, that he could not keep away; and conse¬ 
quently if he could not go along with the crowd he 
would follow up in the hope that he might be able to 
render him some assistance. 

St. John says in his gospel that when they got into 
town with Jesus, that they first carried him before 
one Annas, who had him bound, and then sent him 
to Caiaphas, and that while the trial was going on be¬ 
fore Caiaphas that he himself was in the house and 
that he was acquainted with Caiaphas, who was the 


PETER 


5S 


presiding judge. That while this trial was in progress 
he, John, knowing that Peter was at the door, but 
outside, went out and brought him in; that there was 
a fire of coals on the inside, and that Peter stopped 
to warm himself at this fire, for it was cold. Note 
the language of John, “But Peter stood at the door 
without.” Why was he standing without, while 
John, who was also an apostle, was on the inside of 
the court, passing back and forth and moving around 
and being recognized by the court and officers, as 
one of the apostles of Jesus? The reason is plain: 
Peter was afraid to go inside where the light would 
shine upon him, for fear that some of them would 
recognize him, and that he would be arrested for his 
conduct in the garden of Gethsemane in the fore part 
of the night. This is why he did not go in; and finally 
when John came out and got him and carried him to 
the inside, he left him at the first fire, it being a fire 
of “coals” one that did not give much light—think¬ 
ing, no doubt that he, Peter, might stand there and 
warm himself, without being noticed or recognized. 

From the language used by St. John in describing 
this affair, I do not believe that we would draw too 
strongly upon it if we were to say that John was in¬ 
terested in Peter’s keeping himself out of the clutches 
of the officers. He had perhaps gone out repeatedly 
during the night to where Peter was, and posted him 
with the progress of the trial. Finally toward morn¬ 
ing, when perhaps the greater part of the crowd had 
dispersed and gone away, and those remaining were 
some of them fallen asleep and others drowsily yawn- 


54 


PETER 


ing, that John seeing the opportunity, again goes out, 
and mark you he did not go far, for he finds Peter 
at the door but “without,” and says to him: Peter, 1 
cannot tell how this thing is going. They are not 
through with the trial yet, but a great many of them 
have gone away, and you might come in and warm 
yourself here by this dim fire near the door, without 
being detected. But should any of them get around 
you and begin to question you, you keep the way to 
the outside clear and make the best of it you can. If 
they do get you and identify you they will kill you 
for sticking your sword in that young man Malchus 
in the garden to-night. I do not think that I am 
overdrawing this as a probable conversation between 
them. For John and Peter were both good men and 
dear friends to one another, and it is one of the most 
natural things in the world that John would have 
thought and talked to him just about as I have out¬ 
lined it here. 

But be this as it may, Peter was recognized almost 
as soon as he entered the doorway, by a maiden, and 
they at once began questioning him, and he began 
denying. Now what was this denial on the part of 
Peter made for? The answer suggests itself to the 
mind of every intelligent person. He denied that he 
was a disciple and said that he did not know the man, 
for the purpose of keeping those who were question¬ 
ing him, from recognizing him as the man whom they 
wanted on a charge of assault with intent to murder. 
This denial was made in a worldly way, and for a 
worldly purpose, and to subserve a worldly end. He 


PETER 


55 


did not make the denial for the purpose of conceal¬ 
ing the fact that he was an apostle of Jesus; for there 
was no need of his concealing this fact. It was not an 
offense against the law to be a disciple or apostle of 
Jesus. If it had been, John would have been already 
arrested, for he was in the court-house and the judge 
was personally acquainted with him. Therefore it is 
clear and beyond question that Peter did not make 
the denial for the purpose of concealing a fact that 
did not need to be concealed. 

It was made simply and solely for the purpose of 
defeating identification on his part, at that particular 
time and place. To prove this, so soon as he dis¬ 
covered that he was recognized by these people, he 
turned and took that last farewell look at his Master, 
that he did ever take before his crucifixion, and at 
once went out and wept bitterly. But, mark you, he 
did not return to the house after he was through with 
his weeping; nor do I imagine that he stopped very 
close to that house to do his weeping. However, 
be this as it may, we do not catch another glimpse of 
him any more until after the crucifixion, burial and 
resurrection. We do not see his name mentioned in 
any of the transactions that followed on that fearful 
day of the crucifixion. Yet we see John throughout 
the following morning moving with Jesus before 
Pilate, and later on in the day at the place of cruci¬ 
fixion, with a number of the holy women. One would 
naturally ask, where was Peter? The question as 
naturally answers itself: he was hid to keep the 
officers of the law from finding him. 


56 


PETER 


In regard to Peter’s going out and weeping bitterly 
at the time the cock crew and the Saviour turned and 
looked at him, I will say that I have heard great 
stress laid upon this in which I think he is done a 
great injustice. It is claimed that he wept over the 
fact that he had been compelled to deny that he 
knew the Saviour while he was engaged in conversa¬ 
tion with those people around the fire the night of the 
arrest and trial. That he wept over his own weak¬ 
ness in not being able to stand up like a man and 
own his Lord and Master, etc., etc. 

As I have told you why he denied knowing his Mas¬ 
ter, let me next tell you why he wept on leaving that 
court scene that night, and why he wept so bitterly. 
If you will notice Matthew, Mark and Luke all lay a 
stress upon his weeping, and say that he wept bitterly. 
Now, where there is so much evidence of an un¬ 
doubted character as this, we are forced to the con¬ 
clusion that his weeping was far beyond that of com¬ 
mon men, or of himself on ordinary occasions. Then 
let us look to the cause that did really move the 
apostle to such extreme grief, and I think that we 
will find it in about the same proportion as the grief 
manifested by him. 

When the cock crew Peter was brought face to 
face with his Saviour. There were no words spoken. 
They simply gazed upon each other for a moment, 
and then Peter went out of the house. Never was 
man placed in an attitude before or since, that was 
so trying as this. This night bird had ’phoned to 
him a message, that it would take a volume to tell; 


PETER 


57 


and one of far greater import to him, in its meaning, 
than was the interpretation to Belshazzar of the hand¬ 
writing on the wall. And Jesus looked a look which 
said, Peter, the bird hath told thee truly. Yes, it 
told him that he would follow his Lord and Master 
through Judea no more. It told him that his Lord 
was condemned to die, that the morning would bring 
no pardon, and the morrow no respite from Pilate. 
It told him that he whom he loved so well, would 
on the morrow die on the cross amid the jeers and 
sneers of the populace, and that too, in such a man¬ 
ner as to leave no doubt that the powers of Judea 
sanctioned it. It told him that the disciples of his Lord 
would be hunted down like wolves, and slaughtered 
by every nation under the sun. It told him that the 
apostles were soon to be separated, and assigned to 
different fields of labor in different parts of the world 
to tire and sweat and toil for their Master’s cause, 
until death should come to their relief; and that this 
death should be with some by being clubbed, others 
by being stoned, others by being bound hand and foot 
and dragged over stony places, others being hanged 
on trees, others being crucified upon the cross, some 
with their heads up and some down, and others 
pierced with spears and darts. It told him that a 
foreign nation speaking a strange and mystic tongue 
should come with the swiftness of an eagle and the 
fierceness of a lion against his people, and how they 
would destroy the great city of Jerusalem and the 
temple by not leaving “one stone upon another.” It 
told him of the unparalleled sufferings which his peo- 


58 


PETER 


pie must endure y and of their being slaughtered and 
captured, and driven to foreign lands to serve their 
captors as slaves. 

Then and not until then did he understand the full 
meaning of his Master’s words, when that Master 
standing upon the “Coast of Magdala,” in days gone 
by had said to him, “And I will give unto thee the 
keys of the kingdom of,Heaven; and whatsoever 
thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven; 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shalt be 
loosed in Heaven.” Their full import and meaning 
flashed vividly upon his mind now. His Master 
leaves, and leaves behind him a deranged, distorted, 
distracted, despairing and dying world, all wrangling 
and in many places torturing each other even unto 
death over a misconception of his Messiahship. This 
confused state of things, embodying both the elements 
of destruction and despair, now lays before him, 
awaiting his action. He must move upon it, and fling 
wide the doors leading to salvation, admitting who 
will come, and condemning whosoever will not. 

Were ever human lips called upon before or since to 
pronounce heaven’s blessings or condemnation upon 
humanity in such wholesale terms? Was ever the 
salvation of the unconverted nations of the earth, so 
completely settled upon one man’s shoulders? In 
short do we have anywhere an account either written 
or unwritten of so great a burden being so suddenly 
placed upon anyone? No, no, not one. It has no 
parallel in human history, It is a fact that the kind 
and loving parents often weep in silence over the too 


heavy burden that their tender and youthful children 
have to bear. I doubt not that it is likewise a fact, 
that upon this occasion the gentle and sympathetic 
Saviour of mankind wept, ay, bitterly wept over the 
overburdened Peter. 

The look that he received from the Saviour said to 
him that the crowing of the cock verified each and 
every prophecy which he had ever heard him make; 
as much so as it did the one concerning his denial 
that night. Added to all this was the sore heartfelt 
affliction of his then taking his last long farewell of 
his Lord on earth, and that too under such circum¬ 
stances that he could not even speak to him, or shake 
the parting hand. He left, and left the house think¬ 
ing that he would never see his Lord and Master on 
earth again; for at that time he did not understand 
that, after the crucifixion, his Lord would rise again 
and manifest himself to his apostles and disciples. 
(John xx., 9.) These great weights so suddenly 
placed upon his mind were the true causes of his 
weeping so bitterly. 

Again we have heard it said that he, on the night 
of the arrest, forsook his Lord, and that it was this 
that made him weep so bitterly. To this let me say 
that no man can forsake another unless he should 
leave that other at a time when he could render him 
some service by staying with him. And that no man 
should ever again dare to say that Peter forsook his 
Lord on the night of the arrest, without pointing out 
something that he could have done, the doing of 
which would have been beneficial to Christ, and 


60 


PETER 


which was not done by reason of Peter’s not being 
there, or, being there, did not act. 

As to the charge of cowardice sometimes 
preferred against him, I will say this. There is 
nothing in the whole of the sacred narrative, that 
tends to show that he was a coward. But on the 
contrary there is plenty of evidence in the Bible to 
prove beyond a doubt that he was a brave, bold man, 
who knew no danger, when either his Lord or His 
cause were imperiled. He was the only one of all 
the apostles at the time of the arrest who offered any 
resistance—they were all there. He drew his sword 
and like a good and true soldier went to work with 
it, and did wound one man, and had his Master not 
have made him put up his sword, we do not know how 
many more he would have wounded and perhaps 
killed. Nor was his the only sword in the crowd, 
for St. Luke says not. Yet it was the only one that 
was used or was offered to be used. 

Then let us learn to ascribe to this truly great and 
brave man, a nobler and better name than that of a 
coward, deserter and common liar. Let us say that 
he was led into making the denial by his Lord and 
Master for a two-fold purpose. First, to show him how 
utterly weak and insignificant man is, without the aid 
and assistance of his maker. And secondly, to impress 
upon his mind the fact, that all the prophecies he 
had ever heard him make would be as literally ful¬ 
filled as that one. Such were no doubt the motives 
of the Saviour in having him to make the denial. 

We will now return to our narrative, take up the 


PETER 


61 


apostle and proceed with his history. We next see 
him as Mary Magdalene is breaking to him and John 
the news that “They have taken away the Lord out 
of the sepulcher,” whereupon they both go to the 
sepulcher to see if she was really correct in her state¬ 
ment (i). John says that they ran and that he, out¬ 
running Peter, got there first, and stooped down and 
looked in and saw that the Lord’s body was gone. 
That when Peter came up he went into the sepulcher, 
and examined the grave-clothes carefully and noticed 
how they lay, and that he himself then went into 
the sepulcher and examined how the wrappings that 
had been placed around the body were lying, and 


i. There is some thing peculiar about the conduct of the apostles on this 
occasion. That industrious, faithful and watchful Mary Magdalene here mani¬ 
fests a stronger faith than any of the rest, by being the first of the party to visit 
the sepulcher in the early morning, to see, no doubt, if he was really risen. 
After she had done so and missed the body from the sepulcher, she returns and 
reports the fact that he is not there. “They have taken away the Lord out of 
the sepulcher;’’she is met with the rebuke, “We do not believe you. ” And no 
sooner do they wound the poor woman’s feelings by telling her that they do not 
believe her, than they tear out at a break-neck speed to the sepulcher to see for 
themselves. The question presents itself to me in this way: John, if you all 
did not believe what Mary Magdalene had told you, why did you immediately 
go, and run so fast that you ran oft and left Peter in your great hurry to get to 
the sepulcher to see if it were true? Your actions do not suit your words exactly 
in this instance. And further, why is it that you and Peter are the only ones who 
do go? 

Here we see a trait of character shown in these men on this occasion that 
I believe all men possess to a greater or less degree at some time. They remem¬ 
bered that it was the third day, and that Jesus had said that he would rise from 
the dead on that day. They hoped that he would; they had a faith—I will not 
say how strong—that he would rise. They even appear to be up early as if in 
expectancy of the event, and yet when the first news comes to the effect that he 
had risen, some one says: I do not believe it. They appear to have a kind of 
vacillation of mind. Now they hope; now they doubt. The time draws a little 
nearer; their hopes rise again and this time run a little higher, almost to positive 
belief. Then comes the reaction, and down it goes again. 

This state of see-sawing in their minds had perhaps been going on since 
the evening before, and the faith of some being stronger than others, would, 


62 


PETER 


that by this time Mary was standing without and 
weeping. He and Peter then left the sepulcher and 
went to the place where they had come from, when 
they were first informed by Mary Madgalene that the 
Lord’s body had been moved away. 

Shortly after their arrival at the house, Mary Mag¬ 
dalene came and told them that before she left the 
sepulcher she saw the Lord and talked with him; 
that he was now risen from the dead. They, how¬ 
ever, all went into the house, and kept the doors shut 
and barricaded, all day long, because they were “afraid 
of the Jews.” I wish I knew what house this was, but 
I do not. It is my opinion, however, that this is the 
same house that Peter had been taking refuge in from 
the time that he had left the court-house on the night 
of the arrest and trial of Jesus. He had evidently 
been hid somewhere, and my only reason for locat¬ 
ing him in this house is that he first shows up there, 
after his trouble with the curious mob that besieged 


when at its height, remain up longer than one that was weaker. On account of 
this uneven contest of faiths among them, there was by morning a settled and,in 
my opinion an expressed difference of opinion among them, one saying that he 
will rise and the other saying he will not. At this juncture of affairs they are in¬ 
formed by one who has just returned from the sepulcher that he is not there. 
Upon the receipt of this information they delegate two of their number to go and 
see if the woman is in reality correct, and in delegating them, take one from each 
of the parties who are already at variance in regard to his rising that day. They 
select and send Peter and John to investigate and report the facts in the case. 
By this method both parties—if they really existed—were represented. 

This would then throw into that delegation two: a believer and a disbeliev¬ 
er to the fact of his being already risen. Now as to how they stood, we can only 
determine by what John himself says. He says in his Gospel, xx-9: “For as yet 
they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.” This lan¬ 
guage would make John the disbeliever in this party of two, who had been so 
delegated. If I am right about this it would show, or tend to show, that Peter’s 
faith in this, their darkest moment, was stronger than that of some of his brother 
apostles. 


PETER 


63 


him on the night of the trial. It seems from the 
manner of John’s statement of it, that this house was 
close to the sepulcher. 

This was Sunday morning after the crucifixion on 
Friday before. Toward evening while they were yet 
shut up in that house, Jesus appeared to them in 
their midst, and said to them, “Peace be unto you,” 
and John says, “Then were the disciples glad when 
they saw the Lord.” Think of the intensity of their 
thoughts that day. All day long, they had been 
closeted indoors, and perhaps not talking above a whis¬ 
per, deploring their sad and lamentable condition. 
Some doubting whether Mary Magdalene had actually 
seen him in the morning or not. But evening comes 
and brings with it a relief to them. Christ is in their 
midst again, and they recognize him. What a joy, 
what an unspeakable gush of the soul’s sincere glad¬ 
ness must this have been to those poor men and 
women, who were there in that house on that Sun¬ 
day evening! O, how they must have wept with 
heart overflowing, with joy unutterable! Though 
more than eighteen hundred years have passed since 
that event, I can see that little band of humbled and 
cowed men and women, sitting all day long in that 
closed house, looking from the face of one to the face of 
another, for something they could not find. I can 
see them when he appears in their midst, but I can¬ 
not feel their feelings. No man can. St. John says 
in his dry way “they were glad.” 

From this place the apostles, disciples, holy women 
and other attendants, appear to scatter. Two of 


04 


PETER 


them had already gone to Emmaus. (Luke xxiv./ 
13.) The next we see of Peter, he is at the Sea of 
Galilee in company with a number of the apostles. 
“Peter sayeth to them, I go a-fishing.” Just how 
long it had been from the time that this portion of 
them had left Jerusalem, we do not know. But it 
was not very long. The presumption is that they 
started out from Jerusalem on Monday to foot it 
back to their old haunts, on and around the Sea of 
Galilee. Just what doubts there still might be linger¬ 
ing in their minds we can never know. But that 
they were whipped and disappointed in so far as their 
being elevated in a worldly kingdom of Christ’s, there 
can be no doubt. They had not expected this, and 
sore indeed must have been their disappointment now. 
Three or three and a half years of the prime of their 
lives gone, and the residue greatly imperiled by the 
enraged Jews. Their former business gone to rack 
and to ruin. Their credit (if they had any) impaired, 
and to the same extent their former friends driven 
from them. 

Thus gloomily were they circumstanced and sur¬ 
rounded when Peter says: “Well, boys, I am going 
a-fishing,”and they say “All right, we will go with you.” 
And they did go< a-fishing. They spent the night in 
fishing and failed to catch anything, but with the 
approaching light of morning they are enabled to see, 
though indistinctly, the form of the Saviour standing 
on.the shore, but it is too early yet for them to rec¬ 
ognize him. He calls to them, “Children, have you 
any meat?” to which they reply, “No.” He tells 


PETER 


65 


them to “cast the net on the other side of the ship 
and they shall find.” They do so and catch the 
greatest abundance of fish. No sooner was this done 
than John said to Peter, “It is the Lord,” and as 
soon as Peter heard these words, he was so eager to 
go to him that he could not refrain from jumping 
overboard into the lake, and swimming to the shore, 
where his Lord was standing. He could not, like 
the other apostles, wait until the net was rounded 
in, and the fish taken out, and the boat then rowed 
to the shore, but, in accordance with his quick im¬ 
pulsive nature, leaped out into that lake with about 
the same seeming thoughtfulness that he generally 
leaped into things. This impulsiveness in him has 
caused him to get many a raking by the commenta¬ 
tors, but then I like it in him. That is why he did 
so much in life; he did not put in nine-tenths of his 
time in thinking of something to do the other tenth. 

They were all, however, soon landed and after 
greeting their risen Redeemer, did prepare a meal and 
take that early morning breakfast with him. This was 
the last earthly nourishment that the Redeemer did 
ever take on earth. Here it was that that strange 
conversation occurred between Peter and our Lord, 
in which our Lord asked him those three strange 
questions which we find recorded in the sacred narra¬ 
tive—“Lovest thou me?” which, being all answered in 
the affirmative, he was enjoined to “Feed my sheep.” 
This conversation between Peter and Jesus then 
came to a close, by Jesus telling Peter what manner 
of death he, Peter, would eventually die. “Verily, 


66 


PETER 


verily, I say unto thee, when thou wast young, thou 
girdest thyself, and walkest whither thou wouldst; 
but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth 
thy hands, and another shall gird thee and carry thee 
whither thou wouldst not.” John xxi., 18. These 
words seem to have become forever fixed in Peter’s 
mind, for he alluded to them in after life when he was 
writing his second epistle, for he there says, 1-14.: 
“Knowing that shortly I must put off this my taber¬ 
nacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed 
me.”(i) 

From this lake, according to the gospel of St. Mat¬ 
thew, the apostles were commanded to go into a 
mountain in Galilee which place was designated by 
Jesus, though the name of the mountain is not given. 
They in obedience to this command do go to this 
mountain, and did there again meet Jesus, who then 
commissioned them to go forth and preach to all 
nations. Matt, xxviii., 19. The name of this place 
where they received their commission is Mount 
Olivet. 

While these things were going on in Galilee, there 
was at the same time a great deal of excitement in Je¬ 
rusalem, over the matter of the resurrection of Christ. 
The soldiers who had been placed to guard the sep¬ 
ulcher where Christ was buried, had gone back into 
the city, and told that he was risen. They had how¬ 
ever been hushed up with money. Joseph of Arirna- 
thea had been charged with being a confederate of 

1. This could be used as a strong argument in support of the theory that 
his second Epistle was written while he was in prison at Rome. 


PETER 


67 


Jesus and had been arrested and put in prison. His 
arrest created considerable excitement in the city, and 
while this excitement was at its height, there chanced 
to come into the city three persons, a priest named 
Phineas, a schoolmaster named Ada, and a Levite 
named Aggeus. These three men were just from 
Galilee, and said that as they were on their way from 
Galilee to Jerusalem, that they saw Jesus and his 
apostles at the Mount of Olivet, and that Jesus was 
talking to them when they saw him. They being 
regarded as credible men, and knowing the fact that 
Jesus had been crucified, their statement only made 
the excitement that much worse. It was with difficulty 
that the people could be quieted(i). Shortly after 
receiving their commission to go forth and preach, 
the apostles returned to Jerusalem, and though now 
deprived of the personal presence of the Saviour, they 
were not deprived of his personal influence and re¬ 
deeming powers of grace. They immediately went 
to work and held meetings in their private houses, 
and such other places as they could. Among other 
things they did, was to hold a meeting at which there 
were one hundred and twenty members of their faith 
present, at which meeting Peter presided as moder¬ 
ator. At this meeting he called their attention to the 
fact that a proper person should be elected to fill 
the vacancy in the number of apostles caused by the 


i. See the Book of Nicodemus. Chapters 9, io and ii, in the Apocryphal 
New Testament. Published by Gebbie & Co., Philadelphia. This book con- 
ains all the books that were rejected by the Council of Nice, A. D. 325. 

5 


68 


PETER 


death of Judas Iscariot(i), in order that their num¬ 
ber might be twelve as was originally appointed by 
their Master. The brethren, coinciding with his 
views upon this subject, put in nomination the names 
of two men—Joseph, who was surnamed Justus, and 
Matthias, *who was one of the seventy disciples. 

The choice of one of these two was to be taken by 
lot(2) After the voting it was found that Matthias 
had been elected. He was accordingly received into 
their number, and ever afterward treated by them as 
a brother apostle. Acts, i., 23, 24 and 25. 

The number of apostles being now complete, they 
all assembled together on the day of Pentecost, June 
6th(3), at their accustomed place of worship in order 
to perform their religious duties. While they were 
thus employed, a prodigious noise suddenly filled all 
the house in which they were, and a kind of fiery 
vapor formed in the figure of a man’s tongue, but 
divided a little at the tip, sat upon the heads of each, 
whereupon they were all immediately filled with the 
Holy Ghost, and by its divine inspiration were ena¬ 
bled to speak in several different tongues. Acts ii., 

1 to 4. The visitation of the Holy Ghost was the 

1. See Kitto’s Lives of the Apostles, p 557. 

2. For the benefit of my young readers, I will illustrate how they voted by 
lot. Say, as there were in this instance, 120 voters present. They would put 
the name of each candidate separately on 120 tickets. Then they would have as 
in this case. 240 tickets with the name of each candidate on 120, or half of them. 
These tickets were all the same size and just alike. They were then put into a 
box and well shaken. After which the voter would come up and reach in and 
draw out one without looking and then vote it. By this method a voter could not 
tell who he was voting for. 


3. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 


PETER 


fulfillment of Christ’s promise to them after his res¬ 
urrection. Luke xxiv., 44 and 49. By it they were 
enabled to speak fluently in different tongues which 
they had never heard spoken before. 

The report of so sudden and strange an action was 
soon spread through every part of Jerusalem, which 
at that time was full of Jewish proselytes,“devout men 
out of every nation under heaven, Parthians, Medes, 
Elamites, the dwellers in Mesopotamia and Judea, 
Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphyl- 
lia, Egypt, the parts of Libya about Cyrene, from 
Rome, from Crete and from Arabia.” 

These all soon heard of this miraculous performance 
or effusion of the Holy Ghost, and at once flocked in 
vast crowds to the Christian assembly, where they 
were amazed to hear these Galileans speaking to 
them in their own native tongues, so various and so 
different from one another. 

They spoke for hours to this vast crowd of people, 
and they did not discourse to them idle stories, or 
indulge in the idle sallies of a luxuriant fancy. They 
expatiated on the great and admirable works of 
Omnipotence, and the mysteries of the gospel. 

This surprising conduct on the part of the Galileans 
had a very diversified effect upon the minds of their 
hearers. Some were of the opinion that it was all 
attributable to the effect of the miracle, that had that 
day been wrought upon them, while others charged 
them with being drunk. The truth of the matter was 
this: the apostles were enabled to speak in the man¬ 
ner in which they did by the aid of the Holy Ghost. 


70 


PETER 


The principal cause of such vast crowds gathering 
around them was the great excitement that had been 
in Jerusalem over the matter of Jesus having risen 
from the dead, and having appeared to a number of 
people in Galilee afterward. During the time that 
intervened between the resurrection and the day of 
Pentecost, the people were very much excited over 
this matter, and there was no public speaking at 
which they could learn anything of its truthfulness. 
So high did this excitement get that Mrs. Procla 
Pilate herself became so worked up over the report, 
that Jesus was alive in Galilee, that she took an 
escort of thirteen men, the twelve soldiers who had 
guarded the sepulcher and Longinus, the centurion 
who had pierced the side of Jesus after he was dead 
with a spear, and went into Galilee to see if these 
reports were true, and finding them to be true, had 
so reported at Jerusalem(i). Hence the people 
were all eager to learn more about the affair. 

This is why the preaching of the apostles on that 
day converted so many people. The apostles said 
that Jesus was risen. The holy women said that he 
is risen. The Roman soldiers who had been placed 
to guard the sepulcher said that he was risen; and to 
crown it all, the wife of the governor whose voice (be 
it ever said to her credit) had been heard once before 
to say, “Have thou nothing to do with that just 
man,” said he is risen. All these were in the minds 
of the people, and Peter, in an able manner, on that 
occasion reminded them of their duties to themselves. 


i. See Pilate’s letter to Herod, Apocryphal New Testament, p 271. 


PETER 


71 


The result, says Luke, was that three thousand souls 
were that day made to confess Jesus. 

This wonderfully rapid work of the apostles convert¬ 
ing men and women so fast, alarmed the rulers in 
Jerusalem for fear of its ultimately putting them in 
power. Hence the priest and members of the San¬ 
hedrin, Sadducees and so forth went to work to put a 
check upon it. This they effected by making it 
appear that unless it was stopped, there was likely to 
be a tumult among the people, and probably a riot. 
An information of this kind being laid against them, 
they, the apostles, were apprehended and cast into 
prison. 

On the following day they were arraigned before 
the Jewish Sanhedrim, and by the authority of that 
court were closely questioned as to their authority 
for preaching this new and strange religion to the 
people, and assembling them in such vast multitudes 
as to endanger the public peace, etc. When the 
court was through with specifying its charges and 
propounding its questions, Peter arose and answered 
them for both himself and his brethern in the follow¬ 
ing language: “Be it known unto you and to all the 
descendants of Jacob, that this miracle was wrought 
wholly in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom ye 
yourselves have crucified and slain and whom the 
Almighty has raised again from the dead. This is 
the stone which you builders refused and which is be¬ 
come the head of the corner. Nor is there any other 
way by which you, or any of the sons of men can be 
saved, but by this crucified Saviour. ” This bold 


72 


PETER 


and admirable speech of the Apostle was admired by 
all, even the court itself. Ancient history(i) tells 
us that this court was composed of the same judges 
who had lately condemned the blessed Jesus, and 
that after beholding them with a kind of astonish¬ 
ment, remembered that they had seen them with 
Jesus of Nazareth, and that they next sent the apos¬ 
tles out of the court-room, while they debated among 
themselves what had best be done in the matter. 
And that after due deliberation, they decided that 
they call them in and give them strict charges con¬ 
cerning their preaching, and then release them under 
pain of severe punishment, if they were found doing 
so any more. 

Accordingly they were again called in and charged 
strictly by the court “not to preach any more in the 
name of Jesus.” And that they might consider them¬ 
selves dismissed from the court with this understand¬ 
ing: that, if they were again found preaching in the 
name of Jesus, they would be severely dealt with. 
To all of which the apostles answered, “that as they 
had received a commission from heaven to declare to 
all nations what they had seen and heard, it was cer¬ 
tainly their duty to obey God rather than man.” 

But no sooner were the apostles set free than they 
returned to their brethren and declared to them all 
that had occurred. Whereupon they all engaged in 
prayer and invoked the blessing of Almighty God to 
rest upon them in this so trying a time. They also 
continued preaching in the temple and other public 

i. Fleetwood’s Life of the Apostles, p 443. 


PETER 


73 


places, in a most courageous manner, and by their 
preaching and working miracles converted great 
numbers of the people to the faith. In this connec¬ 
tion let us notice an event which happened at this 
time. It appears that those who were converted by 
the preaching of the apostles at this time, or at least 
a portion of them, took it upon themselves to sell 
whatever they had previously obtained, in the way 
of worldly possessions, and to give the whole of it to 
the up-building of the cause of Christianity. That 
they did give the whole of it is evident from the fol¬ 
lowing narrative: 

Among the new converts was one Ananias and his 
wife Sapphira who claimed that they were converted 
to the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, and they 
came into the church, where the apostles were hold¬ 
ing a meeting and so stated, and stated further, that 
they wished to imitate the free and generous spirit of 
others and give all they had, to the honor of God, 
and the necessities of the church. And also said that 
they had sold their possessions and made ready to 
hand over the proceeds, which they proceeded to lay 
at the apostle’s feet. Here Peter appeared to sus¬ 
pect that something was wrong, and began to ques¬ 
tion Ananias as to it being all of the proceeds of the 
sale; and so closely did he question him, that he 
proved that he was not giving all, as he was repre¬ 
senting that he was doing. This, too, must have 
been the facts in the case for both of these simple- 
minded people, Ananias and his wife Sapphira were 
struck dead on the spot for having made this false 


74 


PETER 


representation. This, as a punishment, appears to 
have been rather severe. It is true that these poor 
people did very wrong to go into a place set apart for 
holy worship, and there voluntarily make a false 
representation in the presence of those divine per¬ 
sons; but it is also true that they paid very dearly for 
it. If this same rule were put in force to-day, not 
in regard to giving all, but in regard to making false 
representations about the amount given, I tell you 
there would be a fearful carting of them out of the 
churches in many localities. 

But instances of such severity as the above were 
very extraordinary; the power of the apostles was 
generally exerted in works of mercy and beneficence 
toward the sons and daughters of affliction. So 
miraculous was their cure of all kinds of sickness and 
afflictions, that the sick and lame and wounded were 
actually brought out and laid along the sidewalks 
where the apostles were to pass(i), in order that 
they might be touched with sympathy at their afflic¬ 
tion, and heal them with their gifted powers. Many 
of the afflicted begged to be laid where Peter’s 
shadow would touch them as he passed(2). And it 
is a fact recorded by all the sacred historians, that 
the apostles did here on this occasion make a liberal 
use of the divine powers given them, and cured men 
who had been lame from their birth. It was the 
curing of these lame people that enabled them in part 
to gain the attention of such vast crowds. Nor were 

x. Fleetwood's Life of the Apostles, p. 445. 

2. Ibid. 


PETER 


75 


these vast assemblies with their expressed faith in 
the preaching of the apostles passing the authorities 
unnoticed. 

The rulers of Israel becoming alarmed at the won¬ 
derful growth of the church again issued orders and 
had the apostles arrested and thrown into prison. But 
during the night following their imprisonment, it 
pleased Almighty God to open wide the doors of their 
prison through a messenger sent from a higher court 
than the one that had ordered them put there and to 
bring forth the apostles and free them. On the fol¬ 
lowing morning the Jewish Court sent its bailiff to 
bring forth the prisoners, who soon returned and re¬ 
ported that he had found the prison doors all securely 
closed and guarded, and that the prisoners were not 
inside the prison. This very much astonished the 
rulers, but they hearing that the apostles were at the 
temple and preaching therein, sent their bailiffs 
hither with instructions for them to bring the apostles 
before them at once, and to do them as little bodily 
harm as possible in so doing. These orders were 
soon executed and the apostles were once more before 
the same court that had so lately enjoined them so 
strictly not to preach any more in the name of Jesus. 
Whereupon the high priest asked them how they 
dared to propagate a doctrine which they had so 
recently been strictly charged not to preach? To 
which Peter, in the name of the rest replied, “We 
certainly ought to obey God, rather than man. And 
though you have so barbarously and contumeliously 
treated the Saviour of the world, yet God hath raised 


76 


PETER 


him up to be a prince and Saviour, to give both 
repentance and remission of sins. And of these 
things both we and the miraculous powers which the 
Holy Ghost hath conferred on all Christians are wit¬ 
nesses.” 

This bold answer of the apostles so aroused the in¬ 
dignation of the court that it at once began taking 
measures to have them destroyed. But there was 
one member of that court whose name was Gamaliel, 
who was a wise and prudent man. He first ordered 
that the prisoners be withdrawn from the court-room. 
He then reminded the other members of the court 
that it might be well to let the apostles go; for h 
their doctrines and designs were of human inventions, 
they would come to nothing, but if they were of God, 
all their power and policy would be of no effect, and 
sad experience might too soon convince them that 
they had opposed the courts of the Most High(i). 
The council upon this advice concluded not to kill 
them, but had them brought into the court and 
severely whipped, and then dismissed them with in¬ 
structions not to preach in the name of Jesus any 
more. 

The apostles did not, however, take heed by this 
severe warning, but continued to preach and work 
miracles until their preaching did work up a storm 
against the Christians in Jerusalem, which termi¬ 
nated in the death of the proto-martyr Stephen. 
Nor did it end here. The apostles themselves were 

i. Fleetwood’s Life of the Apostles, Also see Smith’s Unabridged Bible 
Pictionary. 


PETER 


77 


dispersed to different parts of the world, and as they 
journeyed from Jerusalem they preached in all places 
and countries they came to, or passed through; so 
that by this means the glad tidings of salvation were 
preached to the Gentile world and an ancient proph¬ 
ecy fulfilled which says: “Out of Zion shall go 
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jeru¬ 
salem.” 

Among the many who fled from Jerusalem during 
this stormy time was Philip the deacon, who had 
retired to Samaria, where he by preaching and ex¬ 
horting the people had converted many of them. 
Peter and John were therefore being informed of his 
success, deputed to go hither to him, which they did, 
and after laying hands on the new converts, they, 
the new converts, received the Holy Ghost. They 
then organized them into a church, but in doing this 
they detected one Simon among Philip’s converts, 
who was a magician, and who was not really con¬ 
verted to the religion of Jesus, and him they severely 
reproved and rebuked. But the magician was not 
to be turned easily away. He had the audacity to 
offer the apostles money if they would only invest him 
with the wonderful powers which they themselves pos¬ 
sessed. To this offer Peter replied by severely rebuk¬ 
ing him for his sinful presumption, and showed him 
his sins with such startling truthfulness as to com¬ 
pletely bewilder him. Upon which Simon fell down 
at the feet of the apostle and implored him to make 
intercession with God, that his sins might be for¬ 
given him, and he escape the heavy judgment which 


78 


PETER 


he so justly deserved(i). Whether the apostle did 
so or not we shall see further on in our narrative of 
him. 

The apostles did not stay long at Samaria. So 
soon as they had confirmed the new converts, they 
preached a few sermons to the people in the sur¬ 
rounding villages and then returned to Jerusalem. 
On their return hither, they found that the storm 
against the Christians had in a manner abated. 
Soon after this Peter left Jerusalem to go to other 
parts where other disciples had been preaching the 
gospel since their expulsion from Jerusalem. Among 
other places he visited a small place called Lydda, at 
which place he performed a most miraculous cure of 
one Aneas, who had been confined to his bed for eight 
years with palsy. The miraculous cure of this man 
spread through the country at once, and some of the 
brethren at Joppa hearing of it, sent for the apostle 
to come to Joppa immediately. He did so, and on 
his arrival found his brethren and sisters in great dis¬ 
tress over the death of an aged lady whose name was 
Tabitha, who had just died, but was not yet buried. 
From the account which they gave him of her many 
charities and Christian deeds done while living, the 
apostle was moved to pray to Almighty God for her 
restoration to life and friends. No sooner was his 
prayer uttered than what he asked for was granted, 
and to the surprise of many the good Tabitha was 
restored to life and health, to the great joy of her 
friends and those who had been partakers of her hos- 

i. Kitto’s and Fleetwood’s Lives of the Apostles. 


PETER 


79 


pitalities during her life-time. Acts ix., 36 to 42. 
This miracle confirmed all the newly converted peo¬ 
ple in and about Joppa and also converted many who 
had not been so before. He remained some time at 
Joppa, and while there stopped wich one Simon a 
tanner. 

While he was boarding with this man Simon, he 
had a vision sent him from heaven which he at the 
time interpreted to mean that God had now broken 
down the partition wall between the Jew and Gentile 
world, Acts ii., 4 to 17, and no longer maintained a 
peculiar kindness toward the sons of Jacob. But that 
henceforth God’s peculiar people should be all those 
of every land and tongue who should confess the faith 
and own Christ as their Lord and Master. 

While he was still wondering to himself over this 
new order from heaven, three messengers knocked 
at the gate inquiring for him. On saluting them, he 
was informed by them that one Cornelius, a Roman 
and captain of a band of Italian soldiers at Caesarea 
had sent for him. He informed them that on the 
following day he would accompany them to Caesarea. 
Accordingly on the next day Peter and some of his 
brethren, together with the messengers, set out on 
their journey to Caesarea. Cornelius, having infor¬ 
mation of his coming, had summoned his friends and 
kindred to Caesarea; and at the apostles entering his 
house, fell at his feet, a method of address then in use 
in that country. But Peter considering that honor due 
to God and not himself, lifted him up and explained to 
the company the reason why he was here, and further 


80 


PETER 


added that he had of late learned that God was no re¬ 
specter of persons. That is, that all just persons who 
were believers in the Lord Jesus Christ were looked 
upon as the same by Him. 

Cornelius, then being asked to make a statement, 
said that a few days before, he being conversant in 
the duties of fasting and prayer, an angel from 
heaven had appeared to him declaring that his prayer 
and supplication to heaven had been heard. And 
told him to send to Joppa for one Simon Peter, who 
was living in the house of a tanner near the seaside, 
who would give him further instructions in the mys¬ 
teries of salvation, and that he made no hesitation to 
obey the order of the heavenly messenger, and that 
now you are here let me hear what you have to com¬ 
municate to me. 

The apostle at once gave utterance to his convic¬ 
tion in glowing words, and while he was speaking to 
those present, the Holy Ghost fell upon the greater 
part of them, and they were also converted as Cor¬ 
nelius had been. The Jews who had accompanied 
the apostle were astounded to see that the gifts of the 
Holy Ghost were now being poured out upon the Gen¬ 
tiles. Peter then said to all present that he knew no 
reason why these people should not be baptized, 
as they had received the Holy Ghost, and accord¬ 
ingly gave orders that they should be baptized; and 
in order to confirm them in the faith they had em¬ 
braced he stayed with them some time. 

In this affair we can see the working of Christ as 
clearly as we can see the noonday sun. He had 


PETER 


81 


said to Peter while he was on the earth, “And I will 
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shalt be 
bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
on earth shalt be loosed in heaven.” Matt, xvi., 19. 
He now wanted to see Peter use the keys in the man¬ 
ner in which he intended them. Hence the angel who 
was sent from heaven to see Cornelius at Caesarea, 
instead of being instructed to answer his prayers, 
was instructed to go to Caesarea, and there tell Cor¬ 
nelius that “Thy prayers and thine alms are come 
up for a-memorial before God. And now send men to 
Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is 
Peter: He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose 
house is by the seaside; he shall tell thee what thou 
oughtest to do.” Acts x., 4 to 6. 

While this angel was executing this order and hav¬ 
ing it done, we find “a voice” at Joppa in company 
with St. Peter, and preparing his mind for the com¬ 
ing event. Quite a colloquy passed between them 
and closed by the “voice” saying to Peter while they 
were both on the top of Simon’s house, “Arise, there¬ 
fore, and get thee down, and go with them doubting 
nothing; for I have sent them.” Acts x., 20. Note 
the language: “go with them,” that is, do not send 
word, Peter, to Cornelius, what for him to do, but go 
yourself and see him in person and tell him “what 
he oughtest to do.” In this we see the highest com¬ 
pliment paid to St. Peter that heaven ever paid to 
a man on earth. Nowhere else do we find where a 
man has prayed for the salvation of himself and his 


82 


PETER 


household, and in that prayer made special inquiry as 
to what was required of him by the powers of heaven, 
in order that he might be saved; and in answer to 
his prayers, he is referred to a man on earth, who is 
to tell him all that is necessary for him to do in order 
that he may receive eternal salvation for both him¬ 
self and his household. It would have been as easy 
to have answered the prayer of Cornelius direct from 
heaven, and in fact much quicker and to the point, 
than to have it answered in this roundabout way. 
But the facts go to show that heaven intended that 
the Gentile people should look to Peter as their 
worldly leader in the matter of salvation. Hence I 
say that it was a high compliment paid to Peter by 
the authorities of heaven itself. 

In obedience to the command of this “voice,” Peter 
did go to Caesarea, and did there meet Cornelius at 
his house, and after a brief interview with him, told 
him what was necessary for him “to do” in order that 
he and his household might be saved; and they to¬ 
gether with some of Cornelius’ friends who were pres¬ 
ent did as the apostle instructed, and were all that 
day admitted to salvation on the plan introduced by 
Christ and his apostles. And from that day the Gen¬ 
tiles continued to come into the church of Christ in 
large numbers forever afterward. Hence we might 
truly say that St. Peter did unlock at Caesarea on 
this occasion the door that had always barred the 
Gentiles from partaking of the pleasures and benefits 
of Christianity, and admitted them to a full fellow¬ 
ship therein with the Jews. 


PETER 


83 


From here he returned to Jerusalem, and no sooner 
had he arrived in the city than he was arraigned be¬ 
fore the church and his brother apostles on the charge 
that, “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and 
didst eat with them.” Acts —., i to 4. But for the 
superiority of the man and the eloquent manner in 
which he outlined ail that had passed between him 
and the “voice” at Joppa, and with the angel and 
Cornelius at Caesarea, he might have had consider¬ 
able trouble with his church for having admitted a 
Gentile into the church. But by his able and sincere 
argument he satisfied his brethren that he, in admit¬ 
ting Cornelius and his household, had only done as he 
was ordered by heaven to do. And he finally 
quieted them, and gave them to understand that they 
were to do likewise thereafter themselves(i). 

It was at this meeting that the motion to admit 
the gentiles into the church on equal footing with the 
Jews was made and carried. It was then embodied 
in the form of a synod, and passed as a finality. 
This synod was the written instrument referred to in 
Acts 15 to 20. A copy of it was immediately sent to 
the church at Antioch, to quiet the fears of the Gen¬ 
tiles who were alarmed over rumors current at that 
time, as regarded what the Jews would require of 
them before admitting them into full fellowship in 
the church. Following is a copy of the letter sent: 

1. See Kitto, p. 574. He gives an interesting account of St, Peter’s trouble 
with the church for admitting Cornelius. 

6 


PETER 


& 

“ The Apostles, and the Elders , and the Brethren , to 
the Gentile Brethren in Antioch, and Syria, 
and Cilicia, greeting'. 

“Whereas we have heard that certain men who 
went out from us have troubled you with words, and 
unsettled your souls by telling you to circumcise your¬ 
selves and keep the law, although we gave them no 
such commission: 

“It has been determined by us, being assembled 
with one accord, to choose some from among our¬ 
selves and send them to you with our beloved Barna¬ 
bas and Saul, men that have offered up their lives for 
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent 
therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will 
tell you by word the same which we tell you by letter. 

“For it has been determined by the Holy Spirit 
and by us, to lay upon you no greater burdens than 
these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats 
offered to idols, and from blood, and from things 
strangled, and from fornication. Wherefrom if ye 
keep yourselves it shall be well with you. FARE¬ 
WELL.”^) 

It was about this time that Herod Agrippa had the 
apostle James, the brother of John, beheaded. The 
cause of the Christians again became gloomy, and the 
lives of its principal leaders endangered at every turn 
they made. Peter was himself arrested and thrown 
into prison, and but for the miraculous interposition 
of the angel who unloosed his chains and delivered 

x. See Conybeare & Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p 197, for copy 
of this letter. 


PETER 88 

him from the prison walls, likewise would have per¬ 
ished. This deliverance from prison occurred at night, 
and so soon as the apostle was freed, he went to the 
house of Mrs. Mary Mark, who was at the time living 
in Jerusalem, and there met a number of his breth¬ 
ren, whom he informed of his escape, and then so far 
as we know passed on out of the city. 

“When the morning was come, the officers came 
from Herod to the prison to bring Peter out for his 
execution. The people were already assembling for 
the purpose of witnessing this affair. But when the 
officers came to the prison they were informed that 
Peter had made his escape during the night and was 
not to be had. This the officers at once reported to 
Herod, who got so mad about it that he ordered the 
keepers of the prison to be executed. 

“Some time after this miraculous escape of St. 
Peter a controversy arose in the church at Jerusalem 
between the Jewish and Gentile converts with regard 
to the observation of the Mosaic law—a dispute which 
was the occasion of great uneasiness among a great 
number of the brethren. The Jews zealously con¬ 
tended that it was absolutely necessary to salvation 
to be circumcised, and observe the precepts of the 
ceremonial law, as well as those of the gospel. To 
adjust and settle this difference it was thought nec¬ 
essary to summon a general council of the apostles 
and brethren to meet at Jerusalem. This was ac¬ 
cordingly done and the case thoroughly debated. 
Peter finally rose up at this meeting and declared that 
God having chosen him out of all the apostles to be 


Peter 


m 

the first preacher of the gospel among the Gentiles, 
God who was best able to judge of the hearts of men 
had been witness to them, that they were accepted 
of him by giving them his Holy Spirit, as well as he 
had done the Jews, and consequently there was no 
difference between them. They could not therefore, 
place the Jewish yoke which neither they nor their 
fathers were able to bear, upon the necks of the dis¬ 
ciples without tempting and provoking the Almighty 
who had given sufficient reason to believe that the 
Gentiles, as well as the Jews, would be saved by the 
grace of the gospel. 

“This declaration of the apostle was satisfactory to 
the church, and it was unanimously decreed that no 
other burden than a strict observance of a few par¬ 
ticular precepts equally convenient to the Jew and 
Gentile, should be imposed on them. And this decis¬ 
ion was drawn up into a synodical epistle, and sent to 
the several churches then established for a final ad¬ 
justment of this matter. 

“Soon after this general meeting of the apostles 
and brethren, Peter left Jerusalem and went down 
to Antioch, where, using the liberty given him by the 
gospel, he freely ate and conversed with the Gentile 
converts,considering them now as ‘fellow-citizens with 
the saints and of the household of God. ’ This he 
had been taught by the vision of the sheet let down 
from heaven; this had been lately decreed at Jerusa¬ 
lem; this he had before practiced with regard to Cor¬ 
nelius and his family, and justified the action to the 
satisfaction of his accusers, and this he had freely 


PETER 


87 


and innocently done at Antioch, till some of the Jew¬ 
ish brethren coming hither, he, for fear of offending 
them, withdrew himself from the Gentiles, as if it 
had been unlawful for him to hold conversation with 
uncircumcised persons, notwithstanding he knew and 
was fully satisfied that our blessed Saviour had broken 
down the wall or partition between the Jews and 
Gentiles. 

“By thus acting against the light of his own mind 
and judgment, he condemned what he had approved, 
and destroyed the superstructure he had before erect¬ 
ed; at the same time he confirmed the Jewish zealots 
in their inveterate errors, filled the minds of the Gen¬ 
tiles with scruples, and their conscience with fears. 
Nor was this all; the old prejudices between Jew 
and Gentile were revived, and the whole number of 
Jewish converts, following the apostle’s example, 
separated themselves from the company of Gentile 
Christians. Nay, even Barnabas himself was carried 
away by this torrent of unwarrantable practice. 

“St. Paul was now at Antioch and resolutely op¬ 
posed St. Peter to his face; he publicly reproved him 
as a person worthy to be blamed for his gross pre¬ 
varication. He reasoned and severely expostulated 
with him, that he who was himself a Jew, and con¬ 
sequently under a more immediate obligation of ob¬ 
serving the Mosaic law, should throw off the yoke 
himself, and at the same time endeavor to impose it 
on the Gentiles, who were never under the necessity 
of observing the ceremonies of the Israelites. A 
severe though an impartial charge; but the remark- 


88 


PETER 


able eagerness of St. Paul to place things on a proper 
foundation, though he succeeded for the present, 
made a great noise afterward in the world, and gave 
occasion to the enemies of Christianity to represent 
the whole as a compact of forgery and deceit; of such 
pernicious consequences are disputes among the prin¬ 
cipals of the church, and so fatal are the effects of 
pusillanimity, and a fear of offending persons bigoted 
to insignificant ceremonies.”— Fleetwood's Life of the 
A postles. 

From the foregoing opinion as expressed by Mr. 
Fleetwood, it appears that he, too, has fallen into 
the easy habit of shadowing Peter as the guilty man, 
wherever he, Peter, is found to differ with any one 
else. Since he has said so much about this affair at 
Antioch, let me give you just what was said and the 
circumstances, etc.', under which it was said. Paul 
in Gal. ii., n, 12 and 13 says, “But when Peter 
came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because 
he was to be blamed. For before that certain came 
from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when 
they were come he withdrew and separated himself, 
fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the 
other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch 
that Barnabas also was carried away by their dissim¬ 
ulation.” 

In order to determine the full and fair import and 
meaning of the foregoing language, it becomes nec¬ 
essary to understand the author’s purpose at the time 
of its utterance. In order to do this, it becomes 
necessary to know where St. Paul wrote it, when and 


PETER 


89 


to whom it was written, and what motives prompted 
him to write it. First, then, it was written about 
the latter end of the year 52, or the beginning of the 
year 53(1). Secondly, it was written either at Cor¬ 
inth or Ephesus; most likely the latter(2). He, 
Paul, was induced to write this letter or epistle, to 
quiet a division that had recently crept into the 
churches there, in regard to the Jewish rites and 
ceremonies. He had been visiting that country and 
preaching to the inhabitants, and having converted 
a great number of them, had left the government of 
the churches with them. There would, however, be 
an occasional outbreaking and departing from, the 
faith; and he, in order to prevent further troubles 
of this kind, writes this letter to them. The trouble 
being in its nature very much like the one that had 
come up between himself and Peter at Antioch some 
six or seven years before, he very naturally refers to 
it. 

It may be that Paul had received a letter from 
some of the brethren in Galatia—indeed it is quite 
likely, asking him if this difference then among them, 
had not been settled permanently by him and Peter 
years ago at Antioch, and requesting him if it had or 
had not been settled, to write them to that effect. 
Paul, in answering this probable inquiry, made use 
of the language “I withstood him to the face,” which 
strikes me as being a method of expressing one¬ 
self at that time, and having for its meaning, I had 


1. Preface to Clarke's Commentaries on Galatians. 

a. Conybeare & Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p 524, note I. 


90 


PETER 


a personal interview with him; we discussed the mat¬ 
ter thoroughly, and I gave him my individual views 
of it at the time. The very fact that Paul in this 
epistle alludes to what had passed between himself 
and Peter some six or seven years before, tends to 
show that he was answering an inquiry about it at 
the time. Otherwise it would tend to show malice on 
his part toward Peter, which I do not think he ever 
bore at all. 

These two great men are sometimes represented as 
quarreling with each other at Antioch. This is an 
error, in my opinion. It is true that they did differ 
in regard to their own personal conduct toward the 
Gentiles, Paul maintaining that they should deport 
themselves in one way, and Peter in another. They 
being the leaders were the proper ones to settle that 
question. They differed as all great men have and 
will continue to do throughout time. One of them 
had to give in to the other. Peter, being the eldest 
in years and Christian servitude, claimed the right of 
priority. It was granted. That and only that is all 
there was in this much-talked-of trouble at Antioch. 
And I do not think that Paul would have ever men¬ 
tioned it, but for the fact that a former inquiry upon 
similar points caused him to allude to this. Living 
principle frequently calls for statements by us, in 
which we assert our difference of opinion with the 
dead, while they were yet living, in terms much 
stronger than those used by Paul about Peter. And 
yet we do not purpose to cast the slightest reflections 
by them. So it was with Paul. 


PETER 


91 


As to what was the real difference at the time be¬ 
tween the two men at Antioch is difficult to say. The 
language of the text would bear us out in saying that 
Paul was complaining of Peter on account of his 
failing to perform a social duty. But this cannot be 
the meaning of it, for the reason that Paul himself 
was a man of too much hard common sense to offer 
to interfere with, or in any manner dictate in social 
affairs. And further, he knew that Peter was there 
for the purpose of religiously enfranchising those 
people, and not for the purpose of associating with 
them individually. Nor was there any kind of obli¬ 
gation on Peter’s part to “eat” their unsavory food 
and familiarize himself with them in an individual 
capacity, if he did not choose to do so. 

His mission was now become of far greater impor¬ 
tance than that of a common minister, preaching in a 
circumscribed locality. He was dealing with man¬ 
kind by nations and by races. He bore and felt that 
he bore in his hand, the keys of the kingdom, and 
had used them at Caesarea and at Jerusalem. He 
was now using them at Antioch, though in a way that 
Paul did not appear to fully approve. He had pro¬ 
claimed at each of these places that they, the Gen¬ 
tiles, were now fully enfranchised in all the religious 
rights and privileges that were accorded to the Jews. 
This was all that he could do, and all that his Lord 
and Master ever intended for him to do. And he did 
it as fully and faithfully as it was possible for a worldly 
mortal to. 

From the day that Cornelius and his household 


92 


PETER 


were baptized at Caesarea until the day of Peter’s 
death, he was actively engaged in traveling over the 
earth; from Babylon in the east to Rome in the 
west, upon its seven hills preaching and exhorting in 
hamlet, village and city, to Jew and Gentile alike, 
saying to all that there was no longer any difference 
in the plan of salvation between the different races 
and nations of the earth. And to crown this long and 
useful life with the cloak of sincerity, died at last 
in a Gentile city at the hands of a Gentile people. 

There appears to have been a strong disposition 
upon the part of historians, as well as modern 
divines, to force a construction upon the laguage used 
by this man on the night of the arrest and trial of 
Jesus, which would make him out a liar. Whether 
they in this construction are right or not, is not my 
prerogative to say. But it is my privilege to say that 
if he did tell a lie that night, that I have never been 
able to detect it by anything that I have ever found 
in the sacred narrative. There is a broad difference 
in listening to a man saying that Peter lied, and in 
finding it written in the Bible that he lied. In fact the 
latter cannot be done. It is not so written. 

There were statements made by him that night that 
can be construed in more ways than one, and to my 
mind in a much more plausible way than the one that 
makes him out a liar. Take the instance in John 
xviii., 25, where they ask him this direct question, 
“Art not thou also one of his disciples?” he denied 
it and said, “I am not.” Now we all know that 
Peter was a disciple of John the Baptist, and an 


PETER 


93 


apostle of Jesus Christ. It might have been his idea, 
as it is mine, that he could not be a disciple of both. 
If this was his idea as I maintain that it most likely 
was, then he did not tell a lie by saying “I am not.” 

Again take his statement in Matt, xxvi., 74, “I 
know not the man.” Might it not be that he, Peter, 
meant by this that it was impossible for him as a poor 
weak man to comprehend the deity of the man, suffi¬ 
ciently to say that he did know him. In fact 
could he truly say that he did know him? There is 
a broad difference between knowing a man and being 
acquainted with him. We often see such cases our¬ 
selves, and in some instances we are acquainted with 
persons all our lives, and yet know really little or 
nothing about them. The word “know” means to 
fully comprehend. To know a part and guess at a 
part is to not know at all. We cannot know by halves. 

It might be that the apostle took this view of it, 
and considering that as he could not fully compre^ 
hend the magnitude and power of Jesus, that he had 
no right to say that he knew him. I fail to see how 
he or any of the apostles could truly say that they 
did know him in the full sense of that word, until after 
the day of Pentecost. They were acquainted with 
him, but I think this was about all, until they received 
the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. If he 
looked at it in this light it would then be neither fair 
nor proper to say that he lied when he said, “I know 
not the man.” 

Let me ask in all candor if it would not be more in 
keeping with brotherly love and Christian forbear- 


94 


PETER 


ance, if we feel that we are called upon to pass an 
opinion upon a brother’s conduct, that is susceptible 
of two constructions, the one exonerating, the other 
condemning him, and neither of which can be posi¬ 
tively proven, to give him the benefit of the doubt? 
He might have viewed it in the light suggested above; 
if he did, then how unjust the long and severe criti¬ 
cisms, that have been and are continuing to be, passed 
upon him. I do not feel that I am authorized, when 
passing upon the doings and sayings of this man that 
may be construed one way or another, to ignore the 
one and accept the other, and upon that acceptance 
denounce him as a liar. Christ said, “And why behold- 
est thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but per- 
ceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either 
how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me 
pull out the mote that is in thine eye? when thou 
thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own 
eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out 
of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to 
pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.” I 
am of the opinion, and that opinion is based upon 
the above scriptural quotation, that it is a common 
thing for men to seek opportunity to publish Peter 
as a liar, who have not a hundredth part of the ven¬ 
eration and respect for the truth that he had. And 
further to denounce him as a coward because he did 
not on the night of the arrest and trial of Jesus rush 
madly in and throw his life away where it could not 
have done any good, but on the contrary would have 
been looked upon by the world forever afterward as 
suicide on his part. 


PETER 


95 


tt is all seemingly very nice and pleasant for us to 
sit in the rich, radiating light of mpdern electric chan¬ 
deliers, that so frequently light the gilded halls and 
churches of our country, and there amid the soft, sweet 
chimes of the music of our present civilization, for¬ 
getting the while the long and perilous privations and 
sufferings to which his entire life was subjected, with 
fine-spun theories, to figure out what this man ought 
to have done on certain occasions, and what he ought 
not to have done on certain other occasions, and 
what he ought to be called for doing one and not doing 
the other, etc., etc. But it strikes me that it would 
be much nicer and easier for us to say, that heav¬ 
en’s chosen champion to lay out the great spiritual 
railways from all parts of this earth, focusing them at 
the grand union depot in heaven, built without hands,, 
did and said things as all other great men have 
that are hard for us to understand. This would not 
only be easier on our part, but in much closer keeping 
with the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

Thus far we have proceeded with the history of the 
apostle, based upon facts principally taken from the 
Bible, save in the introductory. But here losing 
sight of him in that sacred Book, we have to recur to 
ancient history for the residue of our narrative of him. 
There is a period of several years following this event 
at Antioch in which he is nearly lost to us, though 
Eusebius tells us that during this period of time he 
was at Metaphrastes and other places in the western 
parts, engaged in propagating the seeds of the gospel 
plan of salvation. 


PETER 


96 

It is the opinion of a great many commentators and 
critics, that during this interval of time he spent the 
most of it at Babylon of old, on the river Euphrates; 
that it was there that he wrote his first epistle(i). 
How long he remained there we cannot tell, but 
toward the latter end of the reign of Nero he came 
to Rome(2), where he found the minds of the people 
much divided upon the subject of Christianity. It 
was here that he met one Simon Magus, whom he 
had once before come in contact with at Samaria. 
This monster seemed to have gotten over the humility 
which Peter had caused him to feel on their former 
meeting at Samaria, and now publicly opposed him 
in his preaching. 

This magician was representing to the people that 
he was the Messiah, and by his tricks and deceptions, 
contrivances and practices had so blinded the more 
ignorant class of the people, as to have quite a fol¬ 
lowing at the time. On a certain day he had adver¬ 
tised that he would ascend to heaven bodily before 
the eyes of the people. We are assured by history 
(3) that both Paul and Peter on this occasion invoked 
Almighty God to destroy this wicked deceiver of men, 
which was done by his means of ascension giving 
way, and he falling headlong upon the stony streets* 
receiving such injuries that he died in a very short time. 
Thus ended the miserable wretch. 

1. See preface to 1st. Peter, Clarke’s Commentaries. 

a. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. 

3. Fleetwood’s Lives of the Apostles, p. 454. 


PETER 97 

Shortly after this event, Peter and Paul both being 
in Rome were arrested and put into the Mamertine 
prison, where they remained for eight or nine months. 
It has been suggested by some of the writers that he 
wrote his second epistle while in this prison. But 
this is not certain, nor is it really known where he 
did write it. There was considerable question among 
the early fathers of the church as to whether he wrote 
it at all(i). There was a book purporting to have 
been written by him and called his revelations, that 
was read in the churches for several centuries after 
his death, and also quoted as genuine by some of the 
early writers(2), who doubted the genuineness of his 
second epistle. He never claimed any authority 
over the churches at Rome, though they recognized 
him as the leading apostle and representative of that 
body(3). He was cast into this prison about the 
first of November, A. D. 63, and remained in it until 
the following June(4). 

I am not good at drawing pictures, but I am at 
finding them after they are already drawn. There 
within the walls of that prison strode back and forth 
on their short daily walks, and perhaps at night often 
sat in silence, the two greatest divines that ever trod 
the earth. The sun slowly receding southward, was 
followed by the black and lowering clouds of the 
north, until the blue skies of Italy were obscured from 

1. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Kitto’s Lives of the Apostles, p. 619. 


m 


PETER 


view. The summer and autumn damps of that 
prison, collected and congealed into wintry frost. 
The little fire built within the prison for the accom¬ 
modation of these two men, slowly blazed up with one 
on either side of it. Each being as equal recipients of 
its benefits as they had been participants of the bur¬ 
dens of their Master during their lives. Paul, with his 
long, thin gray whiskers, bald-headed and bowed, 
occasionally mentions some event of his past life. 
Peter, whose raven black hair and curly beard once 
won the admiration of Judea’s fairest daughters, 
now stands there, stooped and gray, with only an oc¬ 
casional word to say, his eyes fixed upon that fire, 
his mind fixed upon one which John had come out 
and carried him to, to warm himself, thirty years ago, 
a fire of “coals.” He then had a Lord as leader. 
He then had a young and beautiful wife, whose soft 
and loving smiles filled his manly heart with renewed 
hope. He then had a sprightly baby girl, whom he 
daily buried alive under a mountain of a father’s fond 
affections. But, oh, ye barbarous nations of the 
earth, where are they? Ye unseen currents, whither 
have ye drifted me? Thoughts like these would come 
up in the mind of a man like this, tears would come 
into his eyes until he would turn his back to his com¬ 
panion, and stand and bite his beard in silence. 

Thus did these two great men spend the last winter 
of their lives on earth. They consoled each other by 
repeating the fact, that while man’s barbarity had 
stripped them of all this world’s pleasures, and unseen 
currents had often drifted them into whirlpools of 


PETER 


destruction, yet the needle of their souls always had 
and yet did point heavenward. They had fought 
good fights, they had won the victory, though it cost 
their lives. Nations to be born away down the line 
of coming centuries were to be saved by their work 
already done. Reward enough for them. Come what 
may, heaven’s will next be done. Thus resigned and 
thus reposed they awaited their earthly doom. 

They remained in this prison until the following 
June, at which time they were taken out by the order 
of Nero for execution. Some of the writers fix the 
date at A. D. 68, but the weight of authorities on this 
point fixes it at A. D. 64. Kitto fixes the day on June 
29th, but he is alone in giving the exact day, though 
all the rest say they were executed about the last 
days of June. It would therefore appear as if Kitto 
was correct in fixing it on the 29th. 

When they were led out of the prison, they were 
permitted to take a farewell of the brethren and sis¬ 
ters who had come to bid them good-bye, for the last 
time. They then took a farewell of each other, and 
then was broken the long union of the two. Paul was 
then taken out on the road leading to Ostia, the sea¬ 
port of Rome, about three miles, and there, after sol¬ 
emn preparation, submitted his neck to the stroke, 
and was beheaded. “He was buried in the Via 
Ostiensis, about two miles from Rome, and about the 
year 317, Constantine the Great, at the instance of 
Pope Sylvester, built a stately church over his grave, 
and adorned it with a hundred marble columns and 
7 


loo 


PETER 


beautified it with the most exquisite workmanship”(i). 

Peter was next, on account of being a Jew, taken 
and severely scourged, according to the Roman cus¬ 
tom of treating a Jewish prisoner, before executing 
him. After which he was bound and led to the top 
of the Vatican mount near the Tiber. Thus was 
literally fulfilled that which was spoken to him by the 
Saviour. “But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt 
stretch forth thine hands, and another shall gird thee, 
and carry thee whither thou wouldst not.” On his 
arrival at the place of execution he asked the officer 
in charge of him, to grant him the favor of being 
crucified with his head downward, giving as his rea¬ 
son for so singular a request, that he felt unworthy 
to die in the same posture in which his Lord had per¬ 
ished. It was granted, and the great apostle was 
crucified with his head downward. Thus ended this 
great and good man, who did all he could for human¬ 
ity. x- : : 

Then and not until then did heaven’s warden sur¬ 
render the keys that had been so long intrusted to his 
love and keeping by the powers on high, with instruc¬ 
tions to go forth and unloose the shackels with which 
Satan had bound the world. Nor do we have a 
record of when the keys of authority have ever been in¬ 
trusted to a more judicious custodian. Though he 
then handed back to the donor the keys, he did not 
do so until every door barring man from eternal bliss 
had been unlocked, unbolted and unbarred, and the 
great gangway leading from earth to heaven cleared 


i. Fleetwood, Kitto and Smith. 


PETER 


101 


of all its debris. And then like a mighty construction 
engine, testing the line of road just built, moved his 
majestic self along its way until he reached in safety 
the abode of bliss beyond. Saying all the while, in life I 
took the lead and opened out the way and begged 
you to follow me. In death I again take the lead 
over the road I have so long begged you to travel; 
will you only come along its line after me? 

His body being taken from the cross, was embalmed 
after the Jewish manner by Marcellinus the presby¬ 
ter, and buried in the Vatican near the Triumphal way. 
Over his grave a small church was afterward erected, 
which being in the course of time destroyed, his body 
was removed to the cemetery in the Appian Way, 
two miles distant from Rome. Here it continued till 
the time of Pope Cornelius, when it was reconveyed 
to the Vatican where it abode in some obscurity till 
Constantine the Great, from the profound reverence 
he had for the Christian religion, having rebuilt and 
enlarged the Vatican to the honor of St. Peter, 
enriched it with gifts and ornaments, which in every 
age increased in splendor and beauty, till it became 
one of the wonders of the world, and in that light 
was considered for many years after(i). 


I. Kitto. 





ANDREW 



ST. ANDREW. 


I 


















ANDREW. 


The apostle Andrew was the son of one Jonas who 
resided at Bethsaida, a city on the western shore of 
the Sea of Galilee. It was here that both he and 
Peter were born and grew up to manhood. He was 
living at this place at the time of his call to the min¬ 
istry, and engaged in a fishery that was being carried 
on at the time, by a Firm or Company composed of 
the following persons: Jonas and his two sons, 
Andrew and Peter; Zebedee and his two sons, James 
and John. Though Peter was at the time living at 
Capernaum with his mother-in-law, he still owned 
an interest in the fishery, and spent a portion of his 
time there. 

That both Andrew and Peter were acquainted with 
our Saviour, before he called them to join him in his 
ministry, is evident from the gospel of St. John. For 
he says that they had met each other at Bethabara 
where John the Baptist was baptizing beyond Jordan, 
and that it was there that Andrew and another dis¬ 
ciple whose name is not given, had Jesus pointed out 
to them, by John the Baptist, as he, Jesus, was ap¬ 
proaching them. That Andrew and the other disciple 
followed Jesus up until they got into a conversation 
with him, which terminated in Jesus inviting them 
home with him. That they went and stayed with 
105 


106 


ANDREW 


him a day, and that on the next day Andrew hunted 
up Peter and introduced him to Jesus, as the prom¬ 
ised Messiah. The apostle John in narrating this first 
meeting of Andrew and Jesus the day before, very 
studiously conceals his own name; as he always does 
when he is being honored by his Lord and Master: 
and says that “Andrew and another disciple,” and 
that they went from Bethabara home with Jesus that 
evening to see where he “dwelt.” 

When they left John the Baptist and started home 
with Jesus it was late in the evening; “it was about 
the tenth hour”—that is, about five o’clock in the 
evening, and they abode with him a day; that is, they, 
Andrew and John, went home with Jesus and stayed 
with him that night. And the following morning 
Andrew looked up his brother, Peter, introduced him 
to our Saviour and then followed that conversation be¬ 
tween Jesus and Peter recorded by John, Chap, i, 5. 42. 

From this place Andrew and Peter returned to 
their fishing on the Sea of Galilee; and it was some 
time before they were formally or officially called to 
the ministry. From the date of this call, Andrew 
was with his Saviour the principal portion of the time, 
intervening between then and the crucifixion. He 
heard him preach and witnessed the divine influence 
of his sermons upon the people. He saw him per¬ 
form miracles by which the dead were made to live 
again. Thousands of hungry human beings fed on a 
mere handful of food, and the greatest abundance left. 
The deep rolling billows of a greatly agitated sea 
smoothed and quieted down, by his command. 


ANDRE IV 


107 


He was one of the twelve who with the master, 
did eat the passover supper. He was also one of the 
apostles who after the crucifixion, partook of that 
early morning breakfast on the shore of Galilee in 
the gray twilight of morning with the risen Redeemer, 
the last earthly nourishment that the Redeemer ever 
took. He was one of the eleven who in a mountain 
in Galilee, did afterward receive his commission to 
go forth “and teach all nations.” 

If he was ever married there is no record of it. 
The probabilities are that he never was. Whether 
he was older or younger than his brother Peter, we 
do not know. He was a disciple of John the Bap¬ 
tist as was Peter(i), and from his taking the lead at 
Bethabara in getting himself and his brother acquaint¬ 
ed with the Saviour, we might infer that he was the 
elder of the two. But this however would only be 
surmise upon our part. 

Some ancient writers speak of an apocryphal “Acts 
of St. Andrew.” That there was such a book there 
can be no doubt from the authorities mentioned(2). 

But, we have no knowledge of whatever became of 
it. Yet it is quite likely that he left important writ¬ 
ings for posterity, and that owing to the rapid suc¬ 
cession of revolutions in both religious and political 
matters, that followed for the next hundred years 
after his death, they were either by design destroyed 
or by accident lost. 

He was in Jerusalem at the time of the descent of the 

i. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. Edition of 1890. 
a. Ibid. 


108 


4NDREIV 


Holy Ghost, and together with the other apostles was 
filled with its influence and enlightenment, according to 
the promise made to them by the Saviour at the time 
of his ascent at Bethany. Afterward he was assigned 
the duty of preaching the gospel in Scythia, and the 
adjoining countries. Shortly after he had been as¬ 
signed to this portion of the country, he prepared him¬ 
self and took up his journey. On his way to Scythia 
he passed through the countries of Cappadocia, Gala- 
tea and Bithynia, preaching the Gospel through these 
countries and instructing the inhabitants concerning the 
religion of Jesus Christ(i). He continued his journey 
along the Euxine Sea, until passing its border he pene¬ 
trated far into the desert country of Scythia. At many 
places he was warmly received, and attentively listened 
to while preaching and discoursing to the people; but 
at others he was scarcely observed at all. He at last 
reached a place called Amynsus and was there made 
the welcome guest of a wealthy Jew, of that place, 
through whose influence he gained admittance into 
their synagogue and was allowed to preach there to 
the people(2). Here he continued to preach and teach 
for some time, and by his preaching converted a 
number of people to the religion of Jesus Christ. So 
great was his success at this place that he organized a 
church there and ordained them a priest and organized 
them for regular church service and worship. He fixed 
the time of holding their meetings and instructed 

i. Fleetwood, p. 499. 


3. Kitto, p. 622. 


ANDREW 


109 


them fully with reference to church government gen¬ 
erally^). 

Having now succeeded in the establishment of a 
church at Aymnsus, and feeding that he could safely 
leave it in the hands of the converts there, he left 
that place and went to a city called Trapezium, on the 
coast of the Euxine Sea. Here he preached for some 
time and from this place would go into the adjoining 
country and preach in the smaller towns and vil¬ 
lages, making Trapezium his head-quarters during the 
time(2). If he established any church at this place 
we have no record of it. From here he went to a city 
called Nice, where he stayed for two years(3). 
While he was there, he preached regularly and 
exhorted the people to come to the true church of 
Christ. He converted a great number to the faith by 
both preaching and working miracles. On leaving 
Nice, he went to Chalcedon, by the way of Nicomedia. 
He preached in both places; but with what effect is 
not known. From Chalcedon he sailed through the 
Propontis to Amastris(4). He met with great diffi¬ 
culties at these places but used every effort of his 
holy nature to enlighten the inhabitants. He over¬ 
came their opposition to him and his teaching, by an 
invincible patience and resolution, and converted 
many of them to the faith. He next came to Sinope, 
a city situated on the same sea. Here he met his 

1. Kitto, p. 622. 

2. Fleetwood, p.499. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Fleetwood and Kitto. 


110 


ANDREW 


brother Peter, and the two stayed there some time(i). 
But just how long the two brothers remained together 
there we cannot tell; for we have no record of their 
joint action at this place.. Nor have we a record of 
any note of what occured there, save the cruelty of 
the people of that place to Andrew. 

The principal portion of the inhabitants of the 
place were Jews, and so closely did they adhere to 
the old Mosaic law that they allowed no other relig¬ 
ion introduced among them. Therefore so soon as 
Andrew began preaching they began to remonstrate, 
and finding that a remonstrance of words only would 
not deter the apostle, they entered into a conspiracy 
to burn the house in which he lodged and catch him 
as he was making his escape therefrom. But from 
some unknown cause their plan to burn the house 
was frustrated, and consequently a failure. 

They however fell upon another plan, and as he was 
passing along a street they seized upon him, and a 
great number of them after throwing him upon the 
ground, stamped him with their feet. Some beat him 
with clubs, others with rocks and anything they could 
get to inflict an injury upon him. Lastly, to cap this 
piece of beastly brutality, some of them bit out plugs 
of his flesh, with their teeth. They then left him, 
thinking he was dead, and he was carried out and 
dropped in an old field, just as we of to-day carry 
out a dead horse and leave it. But all this had not 
killed him, whom the Saviour had commanded to go 
forth and preach the glad tidings of salvation to all 


i. Fleetwood, p. 499. 


ANDREW 


111 


the world. He lived over it and sufficiently recovered 
himself as to go back in the city and go to preaching 
again. And here he continued to preach to them until 
he had actually converted enough of them, that they 
were of sufficient number and strength to organize 
into a church, and defend themselves against similar 
subsequent attacks(i). 

As to where Peter was during the whole of this 
time we do not know; the presumption is that he had 
left Sinope before Andrew had by his preaching 
aroused the people against him. After he, Andrew, 
had done all he could do for these people and deem¬ 
ing it time to move on, he concluded to return from 
Sinope direct to Jerusalem, which he did(2). 

He had now been away from his home and place of 
nativity about five years, and on returning must have 
witnessed a great and pleasant change. For he had 
left Jerusalem shortly after the crucifixion and at a 
time when the Christians there did not have either 
much respect shown to them or very much liberty al¬ 
lowed them, by the authorities of that country. On his 
return he found St. James the Less in charge of the 
church at Jerusalem, and the church in a thriving 
condition. But he did not stay there long. Like a 
good soldier on a furlough, he makes a flying visit, 
and then puts off to the front again. But let us not 
hurry him awa^ on this occasion. Say that he went 


x. Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p. 499* 
2. Fleetwood, p. 50a 


112 


ANDREW' 


up to Bethsaida and there met some of the friends 
of his youth, and once more walked along the banks 
of that strangely historic Sea of Galilee, in which he 
had often bathed his manly form in days gone by, and 
then passing out by the way of Jerusalem called at 
Bethany and spent a short pleasant day with Martha 
and Mary. That he also called upon the then widowed 
Virgin Mary, and Mary Magdalene, and Mrs. Mary 
Mark; for at this time they all lived in and around 
Jerusalem. 

Let us imagine that the meeting with each of these 
was to him a social feast, that they welcomed him 
under their roofs, and gave to him their best eata¬ 
bles, and made his stay with each a pleasant one, for 
unless we grant him some pleasant and sweet enjoy¬ 
ments of mind on this occasion, we cannot say that he 
ever had any enjoyment from the day of his call to the 
day of his death, save the consciousness of having 
discharged his full duty as a commissioned minister. 
He was a man of great mental powers, which being 
focused upon a particular pursuit, made him a person 
of great intensity of thought. He was unlike many 
modern Christians whose piety manifests itself in 
periodical spells. His was continuous and unbroken, 
until broken by death. He knew no doing of things 
by halves. He traveled but one road, and that led 
to duty. Though it led him from friends and dear 
ones, yet he again bids each and all an affectionate 
farewell and moves on in obedience to the command 
of his Master: “Go ye into all the world and preach 
the gospel to every creature.” 


ANDREW 


113 




He next traveled over Thrace, Thessaly, Achaia and 
Epirus preaching the gospel wherever he went, and 
confirming his doctrine and faith by the performance 
of miracles. Thus far on this his second journey, 
he had not met with any serious trouble. But on 
reaching Petrae, a city in Achaia, he there met ^Egenas 
who was at that time pro-consul of Achaia. iEgenas 
being of a jealous disposition and seeing that St. 
Andrew was drawing over to him, and converting a 
large number of the people, ordered him to desist 
from further preaching, and further efforts to convert 
them to christianity(i). 

A conference was now had between Andrew and 
.Egenas, and a spirited discussion followed. Egenas 
told him that he was doing a great wrong to 
preach such doctrine, and that if he would agree to 
stop and do so no more, and further make a public 
confession that he had done wrong in preaching the 
gospel of Jesus Christ, that he would forgive him for 
what he had done. But to this Andrew replied that 
he knew but one God. That he worshiped Him 
through His son Jesus Christ, according to the com¬ 
mand received from that Son. That he advised him, 
Egenas, to also worship hir' and to recommend his 
people to do the same. Egenas taking offense at 
what Andrew said, ordered him arrested, after abus¬ 
ing him with the most opprobious language, and 
showing him the most distinguished marks of con¬ 
tempt. 

A trial, such as they had in those cruel times, was 


x. Kitto, p. 623. 


114 


ANDREW 


had, over which the pro-counsul iEgenas presided as 
judge and jury. The result was that sentence of 
death was rendered against Andrew, and he was to 
be executed in the following manner: He was to be 
whipped upon his naked body by seven lictors(i) 
until he was dead. The order or sentence was at 
once put into execution and the pro-consul JEge nas 
witnessed the proceeding. But it is strange to see 
how far human cruelty will go when all power is in 
the hands of a despotic tyrant as this man iEgenas 
was. Seeing Andrew take his punishment without a 
murmur, he flew into a greater passion than ever, 
and ordered the whipping to be stopped, and the 
prisoner to be crucified. And that he be fastened to 
the cross with cords instead of nails, that his death 
might be more lingering and tedious; and conse¬ 
quently more painful and tortuous(2). 

A cross was erected, and this second sentence was 
ready to be carried into execution. As he, Andrew, 
was led to it, the people along the way all cried out 
that a good and innocent man was unjustly con¬ 
demned to die. Many of those who were opposed to 
his preaching cried out against this inhuman treat¬ 
ment. But all their cries proved vain. He was led 
to the cross, and on coming to it, saluted it in the fol¬ 
lowing manner: “I have long desired and expected 
this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by 

1. Lictors, as used here, mean9 seven men, who where to do the whipping 
by turns. 

2 . Kitto and Fleetwood. They both agree as to the details of this inhuman 

affair. 


ANDREW 


115 


the body of Christ hanging on it, and adorned with 
his members as with so many inestimable jewels. I, 
therefore, come joyfully and triumphantly to it, that 
it may receive me as a disciple and follower of him 
who once hung upon it, and be the means of carry¬ 
ing me safe to my Master, being the instrument on 
which he redeemed me”(i). 

After offering up his prayers to the throne of grace, 
and exhorting the people to be constant in the faith 
he had taught them, he was fastened to the cross, 
upon which he hung for two whole days. During 
this time he continued to exhort the people, and 
actually preached to them from the cross, the doctrine, 
for the preaching of which he had been fastened to 
the cross. The people meanwhile made every effort 
known to them, to have the pro-consul to commute 
the sentence or to countermand the execution. But 
all to no.effect. At last the prayers of the poor 
apostle were heard, and he expired upon the cross. 
This was the last day of November but the year is 
not given(2). 

There was something about the shape of this cross 
that made it different from that commonly used. It 
was the letter X, while that commonly if not exclu¬ 
sively in use before, was the letter T or cross-bar 
cross. It has been known from that time as St. 
Andrew’s cross(3). His body being taken from the 
cross was decently buried by a lady whose name was 

x. Kitto, p. 624. 

2 . Ibid. 


3. Fleetwood. 
8 


I 


lie 


dNDRBW 


Maximillia, She was reported to be a lady of great 
estate and also one of refinement and feeling, 
though she was the wife of the pro-consul ^Egenas, 
who had had him crucified(i). And could the truth 
be known I have no doubt but that this good lady 
like Mrs. Pilate said to her husband: “Have thou 
nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered 
many things this day in a dream because of him.” 

Afterward Constantine the Great, during his reign, 
had a large and magnificent church built at Constan¬ 
tinople, in honor of the apostles: and at its dedication 
had the remains of St. Andrew brought from Petrae 
where the lady Maximillia had buried him, and had 
him buried in this church at Constantinople. 

This church was taken down by the Emperor Jus¬ 
tinian about one hundred years afterward, in order 
to rebuild it on a greater and more magnificent basis 
than before, and in doing this they found the body 
of Andrew in a wooden coffin(2) and again replaced 
it in its proper place where it no doubt lies to-day. It 
was in this church that the emperor, Leo the Wise, had 
the remains of Mary Magdalene interred, after remov¬ 
ing them from Ephesus where she had been first 
buried by St. John. She was removed about the lat¬ 
ter end of the ninth century(3). 

i. Kitto and Fleetwood. 


2. Fleetwood, p. 501. 

3. Fleetwood’s Lives of the Apostles, p. 560. 








/ 


9 


» 











* 


? 

I 


i 


I 




JAMES THE GREAT 







\ 



N 



« 








f 4 • 




I 


I 

















ST. JAMES, THE GREAT. 






JAMES THE GREAT. 


The apostle James, known in history as James the 
Great, was a brother of the apostle John, and like 
him engaged in the business of fishing. Of his youth 
and how it was spent, we do not know anything 
whatever. His call to the ministry was at the same 
time of that of St. John’s call, and they appear from 
the biblical account given of them to have borne a 
closer relation to the Saviour than the other apostles, 
throughout the Saviour’s ministry. 

There is but little said of him either in history or 
the Bible, but that which is there spoken of him is 
regarded by the best authorities as the truth. Dr. 
Wm. Smith, in his Bible Dictionary, in speaking of the 
credibility of this man’s history says, “of whose life 
and death we can write with certainty.” He was with 
Christ constantly from the time of his call until the 
day of his crucifixion, and afterward took part with 
the other apostles in organizing a church at Jerusa¬ 
lem^). At the time of a division of the country 
among the apostles and an assignment of each to their 
respective future field of operations, that of preach¬ 
ing to the dispersed Jews, we are told by Saphronius, 
fell to James(2). These dispersed Jews were the 

1. Kitto’s and Fleetwood’s Lives of the Apostles. 

2 . Fleetwood’s Lives of the Apostles, p. 503. 

119 


120 JAMES THE GREAT 

converts principally that were dispersed after the 
death of Stephen. 

He next appears to have spent several years in 
traveling and preaching in Judea, and then to have 
visited Spain. That he did visit Spain there can be 
no question, for all the authorities concur in this. 
The Spanish writers give him the honor and credit of 
establishing Christianity in their country. They also 
say that before leaving that country, he appointed 
such of his disciples as were suited to preside over the 
churches organized by him(i). Where he next went 
to from Spain, we do not know, but will have to brief 
his history by saying that he appears here and there, 
and always at work in the ministry. 

We find that he returned to Judea, and was about the 
time of the Passover, in the year A. D. 44, at Jerusa¬ 
lem, where by Herod’s order he was apprehended and 
thrown into prison(2). Very soon after this imprison¬ 
ment there was a brief trial had of his case, and he was 
sentenced to death. After he had received his sen¬ 
tence, and had been led to the place of execu- 

1. The Spanish writers also tell us about a certain woman who accom¬ 
panied James in his missionary tour to Spain, and say that she not only aided 
him greatly in his work of the ministry, but that she gave her entire life and 
energies to the upbuilding and permanent founding of the churches of that 
country. This is the woman who *<ras brought before the Saviour in the temple 
at Jerusalem on the charge of adultery. John viii , 3. Her name was Susanna, 
and her husband, who was an old decrepit man, was named Manassah. She did 
not, however, return to Judea with James upon his return to that country. Ac¬ 
cording to their account of her she remained in Spain until her death and died 
as a saint there. See Adam Clarke’s commentaries on John, Chap, viii , for the 
names of these people, and also an interesting comment by him about them. I 
have also seen somewhere, mention made of the Spanish people building a fine 
church and dedicating it to St. Susanna. But I cannot just at this time give the 
authority. 

3. Kitto’s Lives of the Apostles, p, 624, 


v- ' 


JAMES THE GREAT 


121 


tion, the officer in charge of him, who had been 
his accuser from the beginning, and who had 
watched every movement of his, seeing how 
calmly and composedly the apostle took all things, 
and how evenly and smoothly he was going to receive 
his then pending doom, at once became converted to 
the Christian religion, and fell down at the apostle’s 
feet and begged his pardon for all that he had done 
and said. The apostle, -after recovering from the sur¬ 
prise that so sudden and unexpected a conversion 
gave him, tenderly embraced the man and said, 
“ Peace, my son, peace be unto thee, and pardon of all 
thy faults.” Upon which the officer publicly declared 
himself a Christian, and both were beheaded at the 
same time. While the place of his death is not men¬ 
tioned in history, we have every reason to believe 
that it was at Jerusalem. From the best data we 
have—and they are good—this execution was about 
the first of April, A. D. 44. 

There is no mention made of his burial or of his 
ever having been removed from the place of his first 
interment. It is most likely that he was buried in an 
obscure place, and perhaps his friends, on account of 
the persecution then going on at Jerusalem, never 
knew where he was laid to rest. His death occurred 
fifty-six years before that of his brother John.* He 
is claimed, by some of the writers, to be the first of 
the apostles who came to his death after the cruci¬ 
fixion. 

If he was ever married, we find no trace of it any¬ 
where. He appears, like some of the other apostles 


123 


JAMES THE GREAT 


whom we shall mention further on in this work, to 
have entered the ministry with a full and clear under¬ 
standing, that he should see his Lord and Master no 
more on earth, but that as soon as death relieved him 
of the duty to which his Master had set him, he would 
immediately rejoin him in the world of eternal bliss. 

There is something of historic romance in the fact, 
that these two brothers, emboldened sons of thunder, 
who made the ambitious request of their Master, to 
be seated respectively on his right and left, when he 
was established in his kingdom, were respectively 
assigned, one to be the vanguard of the apostles 
entering that kingdom, the other to bringing up the 
rear more than half a century later. 

As the account of the death of Herod Agrippa, the 
man by whose order St. James was put to death, is 
given by both the Bible and Josephus, and that the two 
strongly corroborate each other, I will here give what 
each says, for the benefit of the reader. 

Actsxii: 21, 22, 23 reads thus, “And upon a set day 
Herod arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, 
and made an oration unto them. And the people 
gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not 
of a man. And immediately the angel of the Lord 
smote him, because he gave not God the glory, and 
he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” 

Josephus says, in Book xix, chapter viii, verse 2, 
“Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all 
Judea he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly 
called Strato’s Tower, and there he exhibited shows 
in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that 


JAMES THE GREAT 


123 ' 


there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows 
for his safety. At which festival, a great multitude 
was gotten together of the principal persons, and 
such as were of dignity through his province. On 
the second day of which shows, he put on a garment 
made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly won¬ 
derful, and came into the theater early in the morn¬ 
ing; at which time the silver of his garment being 
illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays 
upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was 
so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that 
looked intently upon him: and presently his flatterers 
cried out, one from one place, and another from 
another (though not for his good) that he was a god; 
and they added ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although 
we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet 
shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal 
nature. ’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke 
them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he 
presently afterward looked up he saw an owl sitting 
on a certain rope over his head, and immediately 
understood that this bird was the messenger of ill 
tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good 
tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A 
severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a 
most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his 
friends, and said, ‘I whom you call a god, am com¬ 
manded presently to depart this life; while Provi¬ 
dence thus reproves the lying words you just now 
said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, 
am immediately to be hurried away by death. But 


124 


JAMES THE GREAT 


I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as 
it pleases God, for we have by no means lived ill, 
but in a splendid and happy manner.’ When he 
said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly 
he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went 
abroad everywhere, that he would certainly die in a 
little time. But the multitude presently sat in sack¬ 
cloth, with their wives and children, after the law of 
their country, and besought God for the king’s recov¬ 
ery. All places were also full of mourning and lam¬ 
entation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, 
and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the 
ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And 
when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his 
belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the 
fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year 
of his reign.” 

Herod’s death occurred on the 6th day of August 
A. D. 44. Josephus was at this time seven years old, 
and might have been an eye-witness to what he here 
relates. From his manner of giving all the details 
so minutely, we are of the opinion that he either wit¬ 
nessed it himself, or got his information from eye¬ 
witnesses. Herod’s illness lasted only five days. 
He was seized by this malady while he was near the 
center of that magnificent theater, erected by his 
grandfather at Ceasarea, its stone seats rising in a great 
semicircle, tier above tier, upon which were seated 
tens of thousands of eager and watchful human beings. 

So violent was the attack, that it might be truly said, 
that he was carried out of the theater a dying man. 






I 


... v 


PHILIP 


/ 
























PHILIP. 


The apostle Philip and Bartholomew were brothers; 
(i) but of their parentage we do not know absolutely 
anything. The historians do not even attempt to relieve 
this silence in their histories by a traditional account 
of their parentage. The authorities differ as to the 
place of their birth, some holding that they were born 
at Cana of Galilee, while others maintain that it is more 
likely that they were born and raised at Bethsaida, a 
small town on the western shore of the lake of Genes- 
areth called in their time Galilee(2). It is also the 
opinion of the early writers that they were at the time 
of their call engaged in the fisheries that were at the 
time being extensively carried on on the lake. At the 
time however of Philip’s call to the ministry, he was 
living at Bethsaida. He was a man of a family, and 
it is said that his call necessitated his leaving his wife 
and daughter at their home while he went abroad to fill 
his apostolic duties(3). He is mentioned by Clem¬ 
ent of Alexandria as having a wife and children, 
and as approving of the marriage of his daughter(4). 
We learn also from Clement that this is the 

1. Fleetwood’s Lives of the Apostles, p. 511. 

2. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 

3. Clarke’s Commentaries on John, 1:43. Also Smith’s Unabridged Bible 
Dictionary. 

4. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. Edition of 1890. Note b. 

127 


m 


PHILIP 


apostle who, when commanded by Christ to follow 
him, said, “Let me first go and bury my father.” 
This language implies that his father had recently 
died—so recently that as yet he was not buried; and 
as Philip was at this time living at Bethsaida, it is 
probable that his father was living there also at the 
time of his decease. 

The first that we see of this apostle is the next 
day after Jesus had left Peter and Andrew at Bethab- 
ara beyond Jordan, where John the Baptist was baptiz¬ 
ing. He, Jesus, passing through Galilee found Philip, 
and after a brief interview with him, commanded that 
he follow him. This was the first time that Jesus 
had ever given such a command, and consequently 
Philip was the first apostle called by him to the min- 
istry(i). 

We are told by Metaphrastes that Philip’s educa¬ 
tion had never been in any wise neglected from his 
childhood; and that he was thoroughly conversant with 
all the books of Moses and the prophecies relating 
to the coming of the Messiah. He concludes by say¬ 
ing that this apostle, “had been excellently educated.” 
I will add that I believe that all of the apostles were 
educated men. There was at the time a system of 
education in Judea, which insured at least a liberal 
education to all who sought it. 

The boy who chanced to live in the country and 
attended a country school until he was as far advanced 
as that school could carry him, then had the privilege 
of going to Jerusalem or some other city where there 


i. Smith's Bible Dictionary. 


PHILIP 129 

was a college, and there making it known to the fac¬ 
ulty in charge of such a college, that he was desirous 
of advancing himself farther in the study of the scien¬ 
ces, history and astronomy, etc., than his country 
school was capable of carrying him. If he exercised 
this privilege it then became the duty of the faculty in 
charge to examine the applicant, and if after examin¬ 
ing him they found that he was as far advanced as the 
local country teacher could carry him, and further 
saw that the applicant possessed intelligence that 
might be cultivated and developed into a broader and 
more comprehensive view of things than the aver¬ 
age mind, it then became their duty to make a note 
of these facts. The next step in order was to have 
a tax levied upon that particular district from which 
the applicant had come, sufficient to defray the ex¬ 
pense incident to completing his education. He was 
then put into such other high-school or college as was 
deemed best for him, and kept there until he was 
considered as graduated. 

These schools then in existence were based upon 
nearly the same principle as our free schools of to¬ 
day. Except that they were better than ours in this 
particular: they helped the intelligent country-boys 
more than we do. Such a law in force now would 
work wonderfully well in many localities that we 
have seen in our life. 

In order to acquaint the reader more thoroughly 
with the system of educating the people at the time 
when the apostles were boys and young men, I will 
here introduce a part of the definitions, given by Dr. 



130 


PHILIP 


Wm. Smith in his Bible Dictionary, of the words, 
Schools and Scribes. Under the head of Schools he 
says: 

“In the early ages, most of the instruction of young 
children was by the parents. The leisure hours of 
the Sabbaths and Festival days brought the parents in 
constant contact with the children. After the captiv¬ 
ity, schools came more into use, and at the time of 
Christ were very abundant. The schools were in 
connection with the synagogues, which were found in 
every city and in almost every village of the land. 
Their idea of the value of schools may be gained 
from such sayings from the Talmud as ‘ The world is 
preserved by the breath of the children in the schools; ’ 
‘A town in which there are no schools must perish;’ 
‘Jerusalem was destroyed because the education of 
children was neglected.’ Josephus says, ‘Our prin¬ 
cipal care is to educate our children.’ The Talmud 
states that in Bechar there were 400 schools, having 
each 400 teachers with 400 children each and that 
there were 4000 pupils in the house of Rabban 
Simeon Ben-Gamaliel(i). Maimonides thus describes 
a school: ‘The teacher sat at the head, and the 
pupils surrounded him as the crown the head, so that 
every one could see the teacher and hear his words. 
The teacher did not sit in a chair while the pupils 
sat on the ground, but all either sat on chairs or on 
the ground. ’ The children read aloud to acquire flu¬ 
ency. The number of school hours was limited, and 

1. While these figures are erroneously given by the Talmud, they still con¬ 
vey the idea of the great number of schools that were largely attended at Bechar. 


PHILIP 


131 


during the heat of summer, was only four hours. 
The punishment employed was beating with a strap, 
never with a rod. The chief studies were their own 
language and literature, the chief school-books the 
Holy Scriptures; and there were special efforts to 
impress lessons of morality and chastity. Besides 
these, they studied mathematics, astronomy and the 
natural sciences. Beyond the schools for popular 
education, there were higher schools or colleges scat¬ 
tered throughout the cities where the Jews abounded.” 

Under Scribes he says: “In our Lord’s time there 
were two chief parties; first the disciples of Shammai, 
conspicuous for their fierceness, appealing to popular 
passion, using the sword to decide their controversies. 
Out of their party grew the Zealots.—Second. The 
disciples of Hillel, born B. C. 112, and who may 
have been one of the doctors before whom the boy 
Jesus came in the temple, for he lived to be 120 years 
old. Hillel was a ‘liberal conservative, of genial 
character and broad range of thought, wich some 
approximation to a higher teaching.’ In most of the 
points of issue between the two parties, Jesus must 
have appeared in direct antagonism to the school of 
Shammai, in sympathy with that of Hillel. So far, 
on the other hand, as the temper of the Hillel school 
was one of mere adaptation to the feeling of the peo¬ 
ple, cleaving to tradition, wanting in the intuition of 
a higher life, the teaching of Christ must have been 
felt as unsparingly condemning it.—Third. Educa¬ 
tion and life. The special training for a SU vibe’s 
office began probably, about the age of thirteen. 


132 


PHILIP 


The boy who was destined by his parents to the call¬ 
ing of a scribe, went to Jerusalem and applied for 
admission in the school of some famous rabbi. After 
a sufficient period of training, probably at the age of 
thirty, the probationer was solemnly admitted to his 
office. After his admission there was a choice of a 
variety of functions, the chances of failure and suc¬ 
cess. He might give himself to any one of the 
branches of study or combine two or more of them. 
He might rise to high places, become a doctor of the 
law, an arbitrator in family litigations, Luke xii: 14, 
the head of a school, a member of the Sanhedrim. 
He might have to content himself with the humbler 
work of a transcriber, copying the law and the proph¬ 
ets for the use of synagogues, or a notary, writing 
out contracts of sale, covenants of espousal, bills of 
repudiation. The position of the more fortunate 
was of course attractive enough. In our Lord’s time 
the passion for distinction was insatiable. The 
ascending scale of rab, rabbi, rabban, represented so 
many steps on the ladder of ambition. Other forms 
of worldliness were not far off. The salutation in the 
market-place, Matt, xxiii: 7, the reverential kiss offered 
by the scholars to their master, or by rabbis to each 
other, the greeting of Abba, father, Matt, xxiii 19, the 
long robes with the broad blue fringe, Matt, xxiii: 5, all 
these go to make up the picture of a scribe’s life. 
Drawing to themselves, as they did, nearly all the 
energy and thought of Judaism, the close hereditary 
caste of the priesthood was powerless to compete 
with them. Unless the priest became a scribe also, 


PHILIP 


133 

he remained in obscurity. The order as such became 
contemptible and base. For the scribes there were 
the best places at feasts, the chief seats in syna¬ 
gogues. Matt. xxiii:6; Luke xiv:7.” 

From the foregoing we see that the facilities for 
educating the young in Judea, during the boyhood of 
the apostles, was good. Nor can we consistently 
conclude that the apostles who were men of aspira¬ 
tion and pride, and who filled the high position to 
which they were called with credit to themselves, 
and to the admiration of the world, were the ignorant 
set of fishermen about which we hear so much. 

There is but one charge made in the New Testa¬ 
ment, of ignorance against the apostles, and in that 
case, it is only against two of them, Peter and John. 
Acts iv: 13. St. Luke does not here mean anything dis¬ 
respectful of the apostles, nor does he mean that 
they were ignorant men in the worldly sense of that 
term, but is referring to their former ignorant state 
of mind concerning things divine, which had lately 
been removed by the mighty outpouring of the Holy 
Ghost upon them. Enabling them to teach in mat¬ 
ters divine, as well as matters of a worldly nature. 
Let us see what Adam Clarke says upon this subject. 
Says he, “It does not mean ignorance in the common 
acceptation of the term, and our translation is very 
improper. In 710 sense of the word could any of the 
apostles be called ignorant men\ for though their spir¬ 
itual knowledge came all from heaven, yet, in all other 
matters, they seem to have been men of good, sound, 
strong, common sense.” Hereafter when we hear the 


PHILIP 


134 

charge of ignorance preferred against the apostles, let 
us consider whether they were really ignorant men, 
or whether the ignorance is, in fact, in the speaker. 

The evangelists tell us very little of Philip after his 
call to the ministry. Yet they tell enough to disclose 
the fact, that he was constantly with the Saviour 
during his ministry. We are informed by the ancients 
that in the distribution made by the apostles, of the 
then-habitable world, that Upper Asia fell to the 
share of Philip as his future field of operation. That 
he preached in that country for many years, and 
gained numerous converts, whom he baptized into 
the Christian faith, and organized churches, and 
appointed them guides in their church government. 
In fact he seems to have spent the greater portion of 
his life in that country, after the crucifixion. And 
from the account given by the ancient writers of him, 
he must have been very successful. 

He in his apostolic journeyings went to a country 
called Phrygia, and preached there. There was how¬ 
ever at the time two countries called by this name, 
and Theodoret tells us, that “he preached in both the 
Phrygias.” He came to a city called Hierapolis, 
remarkably rich and populous. This city he found 
to be fearfully overrun by idolatry and superstition, 
and in his effort to regain them and to teach them 
the true religion of Christ, he antagonized the feelings 
of the magistrates and those in power, who in turn 
had him arrested and tried and condemned to death. 
On the day set for his execution, he was severely 
scourged and then led to the place of execution, and 


PHILIP 


135 


hanged against a pillar; or as some of the ancients 
have it, he was crucified. 

At the time of his arrest and trial and also his ex¬ 
ecution, his brother and sister were with him. After 
he was dead; his brother St. Bartholomew, and his 
sister Mariamne, took his body down from the place of 
execution and decently buried him. Eusebius says 
that he was buried in Phrygia Pacatiana. This dis¬ 
tinguishes it from that other Phrygia. 

This is the most pitiable picture that I shall draw 
for my reader in this little book. These two brothers 
had been called long years ago to the ministry by 
Jesus, when he was on earth. This call necessitated 
their leaving their mother-country, and going to for¬ 
eign lands. Their loving and affectionate sister Mari¬ 
amne, could not stay behind. She, therefore, when 
the two brothers were separated, traveled with Philip, 
and assisted him in all of his apostolic work. She 
had no doubt seen the Saviour while he was on earth, 
and become so deeply attached to him, and the 
religion he taught, that she preferred to travel with 
her brother Philip and help him all she could, rather 
than remain at her home in Judea. 

We often hear a great deal said about the Virgin 
Mary, and the deep sting of her sorrow and grief, 
as she stood and gazed upon her Son, writhing on 
the cross; but to me and my mind, it was not so sad 
a scene, as this of poor Mariamne. Jesus died in his 
native country, and dying spoke to a friend, and 
asked him to take care of his mother, knowing that 
this friend would do so. Phdip died in a foreign 


136 


PHILIP 


land, and in that death could give no solace or com¬ 
fort to his heart-broken sister. After Jesus was dead, 
influential men begged the honor of taking him down 
from the cross and burying him in a nice and newly 
hewn tomb. When Philip was dead, his own dear 
sister who had followed him in all of his many years 
journeying, had to help her brother Bartholomew, 
take down that dead body,which had been her guide 
and support, in sickness and fainting, as she crossed 
the many burning deserts that lay across the pathway 
of his life, and to lay him down in his last long rest. 

After this was done, the historian tells us that this 
heroic woman and her brother Bartholomew, remained 
there and preached and taught those people, until 
they converted enough of them to make a church 
organization, and that they organized them into a 
church, and ordained them a minister, deacons, and 
so forth. And then after giving them instructions 
how to govern themselves as Christians singly and 
collectively, took their leave and departed in peace 
from them. 





o 



3 / 

v 

ff‘ ‘ « 


IT v , 
. i 


4 


f 




# 





JOHN 

* >_ *' - J - , 

•i. ■ ■' * i 




















ST. JOHN. 


% 





































■' <1 


ST. JOHN. 

The apostle John was the son of Zebedee and 
Salome. His place of birth is not given by any of 
the historians. He was a Jew and born in Judea, but 
exactly where or when, is not known. He is said by 
all the historians and commentators, to be the young¬ 
est man of all the apostles; and from the best data 
that can be had of him, it is supposed that he entered 
the ministry at the age of 25 years. At the time of 
his call to the ministry, he and his brother James 
and their father were engaged in fishing in the Sea of 
, Galilee. He had seen the Saviour about a year 
before this time, at Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where 
John the Baptist was baptizing. 

From the time of his call until the crucifixion, he 
was the constant associate and adviser of his Lord 
and Master. In the language of the historian “It is 
evident that John was present at most of the things, 
related by him in his gospel; and that he was an eye 
and an ear witness of our Lord’s labors, journeyings, 
discourses, miracles, passion, crucifixion, resurrection 
and ascension.” 

It is the opinion of the ancient writers that the 
family to which he belonged, was one of some note(i); 
and this is confirmed by the fact, that he was person- 

1. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 

137 


138 


ST. JOHN 


ally acquainted with the high priest Caiaphas, before 
whom Christ was arraigned and tried, and was the 
only apostle who seems to have taken the liberty on 
that occasion to make himself known there as such. 

As he gives so clear and minute a history of his 
own transactions from the time he entered the minis¬ 
try until the crucifixion, we will begin our narrative 
of him from the garden of Gethsemane. Here he 
was on the night of the arrest, and one of the three 
whom the Saviour selected to go to a further part of 
the garden at the time he offered up his prayer to the 
Father. He had before this been admitted by his 
Lord to be an eye-witness to his Transfiguration, and 
also to the raising of Jairus’ daughter. 

After the arrest he went along with the officers who 
had his Master in charge, and stayed with him that 
night, during the trial had before Caiaphas., He also 
went with him the next morning when he was sent 
before Pontius Pilate, and was a witness to every 
movement had before that officer, and also heard the 
confirmation of the judgment of the court below, and 
the final sentence pronounced upon him. We next 
see him that day at the cross with a number of the 
Holy women. He was with his Lord in his last 
moments, and here it w r as that Jesus committed to 
his care his Mother Mary. Whether John was at the 
burial of Jesus or not is unknown, but the supposi¬ 
tion is that he was. 

He was lodged in a house near by with Peter and 
some of the other apostles on the following Sunday 
morning, when Mary Magdalene came and told them 


ST.JOHN 


139 


that some one had removed the body of their Lord 
from the sepulcher. He went with Peter to see and 
did see for himself, that his Lord was gone. He 
states however that on that same day in the evening 
Jesus appeared to them, and conversed with them in 
the house in which they were all concealed. 

He next saw him at the Sea of Galilee, and again 
in or upon a mountain in Galilee, and was one of those 
who received from the Master the oral order, to go 
forth and preach the Gospel to all the world. He 
was with the other apostles at Jerusalem in the organ¬ 
ization of the church there. While we are not certain 
as to his place of residence after the' crucifixion, we 
think that he lived in Jerusalem; for we find him 
there in many of the early church troubles that fol¬ 
lowed that event. He must have kept house also, 
for he says that after the crucifixion, he took the 
Virgin Mary to his house. We are also told by all 
the ancient writers, that she lived with St. John the 
remainder of her life, which was about fifteen years 
after the crucifixion (i). 

If he was ever married we have no definite knowl¬ 
edge of the fact; though some of the ancients tell us 
that he was a married man(2). This statement of 
theirs, while it is only found in unaccredited history, 
might be considered as corroborated by his own state¬ 
ment that after the crucifixion he took the widowed 
Virgin Mary to his own house. This does at least 
imply that he was house-keeping at the time, The 

1. Kitto’s Life of the Apostles, p. 636. 

2. Fleetwood, p. 588, 


140 


ST.JOHN 


two statements taken together would in my opinion 
justify the conclusion that he was a married man. 
But, granting this to be so, I must say that I have 
never found any trace of his family anywhere. 

He seems to have made Jerusalem his head-quarters 
until the death of the Virgin Mary. During this time 
he traveled some, though not extensively. He vis¬ 
ited the churches that were being organized in Judea, 
and aided greatly in their organization. 

He then went to Asia, that portion of the world 
having been assigned to him in the apostolic subdivis¬ 
ion of the world for their labors(i). Here he indus¬ 
triously applied himself, preaching the gospel 
where it had hitherto been unknown. While he was 
thus engaged in preaching in Asia, he appears to have 
traveled a great deal. He not only preached, but 
succeeded in establishing many churches of eminence, 
among which were those of Smyrna, Pergamus, Thy- 
atira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea and others too 
numerous to mention. During this time he had made 
Ephesus his head-quarters, where Timothy, who was 
a convert of St. Paul, was in charge of the church. 

After several years of labor in this field he was at 
last apprehended by the order of Domitian, who had 
begun a crusade of oppression against the Christians, 
and sent bound as a prisoner to Rome on the charge 
of being a public subverter of the religion of the 
empire. On his arrival at Rome, he was tried and 
found guilty, and the death-sentence passed upon 
him. It was a singular sentence, being that he 


ST. JOHN 


141 


should be bound hard and fast and thrown alive into 
a caldron of boiling oil, which was done(i), and 
strange to say he got out of it and lived to undergo 
another trial before the same tribunal, and received a 
second sentence from it. This last sentence was 
that he should be banished to a lonely and almost 
desolate island called Patmos, in the Archipelago. 
He remained on this island for several years, during 
which time he instructed the people in the knowledge 
of the Christian faith. It was on this island that he 
wrote his book of Revelation(2). This was done 
about the close of the reign of Domitian, who was 
succeeded by Nerva, who by public edict, recalled 
all those whom his predecessor had banished. 

On St. John’s release he again went to Ephesus, 
his former home, and on his arrival there, he found 
that the idolatrous people had lately martyred Timo¬ 
thy their bishop. Here, with the assistance of seven 
other bishops, he took upon himself the government 
of the large diocese of Asia Minor, and continued 
faithfully at his work, traveling from one part of the 
country to another. It was during these years of his 
life that he wrote his three Epistles, the first of which 
is classed in our Bible “The first general Epistle of 
John.” St. Augustine tells us that this Epistle was 
originally inscribed to the Parthians, and adds “that 
it was because, in all probability, he had preached 
to the Parthians in Parthia previous to his writing it.” 

1. Fleetwood p. 506. Mosheim doubts this part of John's history. Mos. 
1:144—2. 

2. Clarke. 


/ 


142 


ST.JOHN 


The other two are both short and plain. In fact 
they are nothing more than two letters written by St. 
John to two personal friends, and Christians. One 
is directed to Gaius, the other to “The elect lady and 
her children.” This lady’s name was Kyria(i), and 
she lived not far from Ephesus. She was a deaconess 
in a country church, one perhaps that was held at 
her house. 

He having now got the diocese thoroughly organ¬ 
ized, and different men preaching at the different 
churches throughout the whole of it, saw that age 
was making its inroads upon him, and that ere long, 
that firm mind and body of his must begin to show 
decay. Realizing these facts, and the further fact 
that he was now at life’s zenith for mental powers, 
and at a place where he could be quiet and re-survey 
the whole of his life, he undertook the writing of his 
Gospel—the most important of all his writings, if not 
of all ever written. However, before engaging in this 
great undertaking, he caused all the churches in his 
diocese to engage in fasting and prayer, praying the 
blessing of heaven on so great an undertaking. So 
soon as this was done, he immediately set to work and 
kept steadily at it until it was finished. When he 
had completed the work and it found its way before 
the public, it was so highly approved and praised, 
that the critics of the times, in commenting upon it, 
“compared him to an eagle soaring aloft among 
clouds, whither the weak eye of man could not follow 
him.” St. Basil says, “among all the evangelical 

i. See Clarke’s Commentaries, vol. vi, p. 936, for her name. 


ST. JOHN 


143 


writers none are like St. John, the son of thunder, 
for the sublimity of his speech and the height of his 
discourses, which are beyond any man’s capacity fully 
to reach and comprehend.” Epiphanus says, “St. 
John, as a true son of thunder, by a loftiness of 
speech peculiar to himself, acquainted us, as it were, 
out of the clouds and dark recesses of wisdom, with 
the divine doctrine of the Son of God.” 

Having completed his Gospel, he continued to 
preach to the church at Ephesus, and to teach the 
people elsewhere until it is said of him that he be¬ 
came so feeble that he abandoned all other work and 
would, upon going to the church, only say to the con¬ 
gregation, “My dear children, love one another.” We 
are informed by some of the ancients that he died at 
the age of 99 years, but St. Jerome and others of 
unquestioned authority, fix his death at the age of 
100 years. He died at Ephesus, A. D. 105, after 
having served as a minister of God for seventy-five 
consecutive years, and was buried there by the Chris¬ 
tian people of that place(i). 

He was the only one of the twelve apostles who 
died a natural death, and further, he was the last of 
them all(2), the others having gone before him a 
long time. If the ancients ever kept a day for him 
or ever built a church to commemorate his memory, 
we do not know anything of it. If his body was ever 
removed from the first place of its interment, we 

1. Clarke’s Commentaries, vol, v. p. 508. 

2. All the authorities concur in this. 


i44 ST.JOHN 

know nothing of that, but are of the opinion that it 
never was. 

In all of his writings he never styles himself either 
apostle or evangelist. The title of presbyter or 
elder is all he ever assumed. His writings all show 
him to have been a man of great modesty, as well as 
one of great kindness. With this ends all of our his¬ 
torical knowledge of the apostle. 

Having now completed what little is known of the 
apostle’s life, I want to next notice a passage of 
scripture as found in his gospel. And as that pas¬ 
sage appears to have been broken up from its orig¬ 
inal relation to itself, I will first put it together as I 
think he wrote it, and then proceed with what I have 
to say upon it. 

In chapter twenty of his gospel, we find two 
verses, the thirtieth and thirty-first, which belong 
between verses twenty-four and twenty-five in the 
succeeding chapter twenty-one, place them in this 
relation to each other and read them, and you will 
then catch the full meaning of the author. 

They then read like] this: “And many other signs 
truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which 
are not written in this book: but these are written 
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the 
Son of God; and that believing ye might have life 
through his name. This is the disciple which testi- 
fieth of these things and wrote these things: and we 
know that his testimony is true.” 

In this we can clearly comprehend the requirements 
made of us and with which we must comply, before 


we can become the recipients of salvation, just as the 
apostle John wrote it. And he wrote it in closing 
the L>t chapter in the last book that was written of 
all the books in the whole of the entire Bible. He 
knew at the time that he wrote these verses that 
the voice of inspiration in a moment more would 
cease to speak, and that he would lay his pen down 
forever. Hence he carefully studied and systematically 
penned them just as he ought to have done. Mosheim 
says that before he wrote this gospel that he read and 
approved those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and 
then added his own by way of supplement^). 

Now what I wish to particularly call your atten¬ 
tion to, is the distinction which he here draws between 
knowledge and belief, together with his subsequent 
application of the two terms, and to whom he ap¬ 
plies them. He says, “that ye might believe, and 
believing have life through his name,” now if he is 
correct we cannot come at that “life” by any system 
of knowledge known to us. We can only reach it 
through the medium of “belief.” Yet in speaking of 
the matter himself as it applied to himself, he does 
not use the word believe, but says he knows; and it 
is my opinion that he did know through the various 
feeders of his brain that he was the “Christ.” Yet he 
was quick enough in his comprehension to know that 
you and I of to-day could not, while in this world, 
know the fact of his Christ’s Divinity; and consequent¬ 
ly he very kindly tells us that it is not for us to know 
as he knew; but that we are only required to believe,^ 


146 


ST.JOHN 


in order that we may be entitled to as great an in¬ 
heritance as he, with all of his knowledge. 

Belief is that state of the mind brought about by 
evidence not amounting to knowledge. Its most del¬ 
icate form or rather its incipiency is evidenced by the 
words: suspect, suspected, and suspicioned; these 
molecules of thought or separate suspicions are either 
continuing to collect in the mind until they form a 
belief, or if the first suspicion proves to be unfounded, 
that is, if others fail to come in and confirm its posi¬ 
tion as being likely to become true, it then dies and 
passes forever from the mind as softly and as noise¬ 
lessly as do the sound-waves produced upon the air 
by the thinking of the human brain. 

In defining the word belief, we might with propri¬ 
ety say that belief is a foundation upon which knowl¬ 
edge may or may not afterward stand. This founda¬ 
tion in worldly affairs is often laid many, many years 
before the structure is completed. When it is complet¬ 
ed however, be the time long or short, it is then called 
knowledge and not until then. So it is in matters 
Divine. We can believe in the Divinity of Jesus 
Christ while we are living this life, but we cannot 
know that fact until we have passed from life to 
death. Hence the apostle is very particular to impress 
upon our minds the fact that we are to be saved upon 
our belief, and not upon our knowledge. Belief 
points to the future, knowledge lays behind us. 

Faith is that state of the mind after belief is estab¬ 
lished in it and before knowledge is developed to it, 
that is hopeful that the knowledge will be attained. 


ST.JOHN 


147 


All faith is preceded by belief, though all belief is 
not succeeded by faith. Faith only lies between the 
belief and knowledge of those things which we hope 
will come to pass. It has less play than any other 
word in our language. It can only be used in this 
sense. Scripturally speaking, “Faith is the substance 
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” 
Hence the man, who believes in the Divinity of Jesus 
Christ, and hopes that that belief will develop into 
a knowledge on his part after death, is said to have 
faith in Jesus Christ. 

Knowledge is the same under any and all circum¬ 
stances, and is distinguishable from all other evi¬ 
dences, by the fact, that its possessor can always tell 
how he came in possession of it. A man may believe 
a thing, and not be able at the time to give a satis¬ 
factory reason why he does believe it; he may even go 
farther, and foster and mother that belief with faith, 
and yet not be able to give a reason for the faith within 
him. But whenever a man knows a thing, he can at 
the time always tell you how he came to know it. This 
is the word that we have the least use for, of all the 
words written in our language. 

These four words, suspect, belief, faith and knowl¬ 
edge represent the human mind in all of its phases. 
They also divide it into four separate and distinct 
divisions, no one of which should ever be used in the 
place of another. It is as patent an error to say that 
a man knows something which he only believes, as it 
would be to say fruit was ripe when in fact it was 
green. One of these four words will shadow forth 

10 


148 


ST.JOHN 


the state of mind at any moment of our lives, upon 
a subject by us being considered, and he who under¬ 
takes to use them, without being versed in their 
usage, simply entangles Scripture and butchers gram¬ 
mar. I wish that the people would teach their chil¬ 
dren the meaning of them while they are yet children, 
and instruct them thoroughly in their uses. If they 
would do this, the most important part of the 
Scriptures (if one part is more important than another) 
would always be clear in their minds. It might be that 
some very large children could learn something of their 
use and meaning, if they were disposed to do so. 

As to what the apostle meant by these three verses, 
I have only to say that he meant just what he 
said and nothing more. Language could not be made 
plainer, nor could a reasonablyminded person expect 
salvation in consideration of a less demand upon him. 
All that we are commanded to do, is to accept Jesus 
as a messenger sent by our Creator to us on a mission 
of mercy, and then acknowledge his Divinity to the 
world. The apostle John, in order to help us along 
in this matter, went so far as to write his gospel for 
us. This was a voluntary act on his part, for the 
reason that his work was already done, without his 
writing any book. He was commanded to go forth 
and preach; there was nothing said about his writing 
a book; and yet in his mercy and goodness of heart 
to us, he, after working out his task, and a heavy, 
long, laborious one it was, went farther and drew on 
the ease and relaxation of age sufficiently to write a 
book for us that has guided us ever since his death, 


ST.JOHN 


149 


and will continue to guide those who want to do right, 
as long as time may last. 

Then I would say to you to obey the command as 
it is written by the apostle. Believe in the Divinity 
of Jesus Christ, and take my word for it that if you 
will do this, that faith, about which we have 
spoken, will attend you from that moment, and feed 
and strengthen that belief, until by it you will find 
yourself on that great highway leading to a crossing 
on the river, where the long sloping banks and solid, 
fixed bottom will pass you easily and safely to the 
opposite side, where all your belief and faith will 
instantly ripen into a knowledge that Christ was the 
Saviour, and that he did suffer and die for us alone. 
“Seek ye the Lord and all these things will be given 
you.” 

We will now take a view of the apostle while he 
was writing this gospel, and associate with it some 
facts and events which preceded his writing it, as 
well as the motive which prompted him to write it. 
He wrote it at an advanced state of life, and seeing 
that he soon must go the way that all of his brother 
apostles had already gone, he felt keenly the necessity 
of its being written for the benefit of those who 
should live after him. He perhaps felt that with him 
would be buried the last personal knowledge of Christ, 
and that all he could now do for a world which he 
had already seen so much blood spilt over, would be 
to write for it his gospel plan of salvation. This then 
he undertakes, and slowly and carefully pens down 
that plan as he received it from on high. In it he 


150 


ST. JOHN 


enters more into details than any other gospel 
writer. Can it be that he makes mistakes or writes 
falsehoods in it? Can it be that that same hand 
which had closed in death the eyes of the Virgin 
Mary, and laid her to rest among the vine-clad hills 
of her native Judea, and later on in life had laid to 
rest another of the best and purest of women, Mary 
Magdalene(i), in the far off Ephesus, whither she 
had followed him, would now pen a falsehood for a 
world for which all these had died? It cannot be so. 

If ever man had a double cause for writing the 
truth, this man certainly had it. If men ever had suffi¬ 
cient evidence to justify them in believing all that a 
man ever wrote, they certainly have it in this man. 

Fleetwood, p. 560. Also Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. 


BARTHOLOMEW 



ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 






BARTHOLOMEW 


The apostle Bartholomew is known in the New 
Testament by two names. Matthew, Mark and Luke, 
all, call him Bartholomew, while John never calls him 
by any other name than Nathaniel. As the name 
Bartholomew signifies the son of Thalmia, it is very 
probable that his full name was Nathaniel Thalmia. 
I have used every means known to me to ascertain 
the surname of this family, but cannot do so. They 
were a prominent family of people in their time, and 
show by their history as a family, to have been rather 
a superior one in education, refined feelings and 
affection. There is something in the answer that this 
man’s brother Philip gave to the Saviour, when the 
Saviour commanded him to “follow him,” that is 
worthy of admiration. “Let me first go and bury 
my father.” Showing clearly that while he was com¬ 
manded by the Saviour of the world, in unconditional 
language, to depart from his former habits, customs 
and duties, and to follow him at once, yet he did not 
allow the distinguishing honor conferred upon him by 
the call to cause him to forget a parental duty. His 
language implies that he recognized the superiority of 
the Saviour for he says, “Let me,”etc,. showing that he 
appealed to him, to be excused for a particular thing, 
to wit: to “bury my father.” 

151 


153 


BARTHOLOMEW 


Again the strong affection that the two brothers 
exhibit for their sister Mariamne, by providing a 
means to carry her with them in their traveling from 
one country to another shows them to have been 
reared and tutored in their youth by kind and loving 
parents. The bare mention by the historian Meta- 
phrastes, of the excellent education that Philip pos¬ 
sessed, is of itself a fact that tends to show family 
superiority. 

This man, Bartholomew, is the person to whom 
Philip called and said to him that, “he had found him 
of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did 
write: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” To 
which he replied, “Can there be any good thing come 
out of Nazareth?” This answer on his part shows him 
to have been a man well posted in the affairs of his 
country at the time. The bare mention of Nazareth 
was enough to call to his mind the many vices with 
which that place was stigmatized; and further his an¬ 
swer goes to show that he was unwilling to accept 
his brother’s statement, that the Messiah had ap¬ 
peared. This shows him to have been a man who ex¬ 
ercised his reason and discretionary powers. He was 
not willing to accept just any kind of a stranger who 
might come along, for the Messiah, for whom he had 
so long been looking; and especially when that stranger 
hailed from Nazareth. Consequently he had to 
meet this Messiah and have a personal interview with 
him, before he would accept him as such. This 
however he did, and after satisfying himself upon this 
point, accepted him as the Messiah forever afterward. 


BARTHOLOMEW 


153 


Here we have an evidence of the fact that this 
apostle, at least, did not propose to accept any and 
every unnatural thing that was or could be told to 
him, about the Messiah. He appears to have had 
a mind of his own, and not to have admitted that 
Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah until he had 
thoroughly and fully investigated the matter for him¬ 
self. Then how much more reliable should his state¬ 
ments appear to us, we knowing to what ends he 
reached at the time, to keep an imposition from being 
practised upon him. These brief extracts from the 
conversations of those men of old, which we find 
here and there in the New Testament, will, if properly 
studied, reveal the fact to the mind of the inquirer, 
that those men were not a set of ignorant, unthought¬ 
ful men. But on the contrary employed about the 
same rules and tests to ascertain the truthfulness of 
unnatural things then, that we would apply to-day 
were we circumstanced as they. 

After his acceptance of the Saviour, he appears 
from all accounts to have been a constant follower of 
him until the crucifixion, and to have remained with 
the other apostles until after the day of Pentecost. 
After that event he visited various parts of the world 
and preached the Gospel where ever he went(i). In 
his travels he reached Upper India and preached to 
the people there for some time, and then went to the 
eastern extremties of Asia(2). He then turned to the 
northern and western parts and we find him at Hier- 

1. Kitto’s Lives of the Apostles, p. 629. 

2. Ibid. 


154 


BARTHOLOMEW 


apolis in Phrygia, laboring in concert with his brother 
Philip(i). Their sister Mariamne was here with 
them, and the three worked harmoniously together 
with the people until they had converted quite a 
number of them to the religion of their Lord and 
Master. 

This was, to say the least of it, a rather uncommon 
scene; two brothers and a sister in that far away 
country imperiling their lives at every move, and yet 
moving all the time in an effort to better the condi¬ 
tion of those people who were seeking to destroy 
them; and did very soon after they begun preaching 
take Philip and after a brief trial condemn him to 
death, and then execute him. The historian, Fleet- 
wood, tells us that Bartholomew and Mariamne wit¬ 
nessed his death, and that after he was dead, they, like 
Joseph of Arimathea, begged the privilege of taking 
the body down and decently burying it. Which priv¬ 
ilege being accorded them, they did with their own 
hands take him down and bury him there. 

The same historian tells us that these same people 
afterward caught Bartholomew and St. Paul, and 
tried and condemed them to death and went so far as to 
fasten them upon the cross, but from some reason 
unknown, changed their minds and released them 
though he does not say how long this was after the 
death of Philip. 

The apostle next appears to us in Lycaonia, where 
St. Chrysostom tells us, he remained for some time 
and preached the Gospel to the people with great 

x. Fleetwood's Lives ot the Apostles, p. 516. 


BARTHOLOMEW 


155 


success. He next appears in Albanople, a city in 
Great Armenia(i). This place was fearfully overrun 
by idolatrous and wicked people, whom he in attempt¬ 
ing to regain from their ways of wickedness and sin, 
by preaching them the true religion of Jesus Christ, 
made himself so obnoxious to the rulers that they 
ordered him to be killed. This order was promptly 
executed, and thus ended the life of the apostle Bar¬ 
tholomew. Neither the means of his death, nor 
the day or year are given. If the ancients ever kept 
any particular day in honor of him we do not find it 
mentioned. Nor do we have any data by which we can 
approximate how long he survived his brother Philip. 

Whether his sister Mariamne was still living and 
with him at the time of his death, is not known. 
Nor do we know whatever became of her after the 
death of Philip at Hierapolis in Phrygia. There we 
lose all trail of her, and to satisfy the reader I will 
say that I have crossed and recrossed every path known 
to me in history, by which I might possibly get one 
more glimpse of her. But all in vain. So we will 
have to give her up as lost in the smoke and dust of 
battle as fought by the Christians of her age, and con¬ 
tent ourselves as best we can, after having had this 
brief though lovely glimpse of her. Yet I must say 
that I do hate to have to say good night to a family, 
after so brief and yet so interesting an acquaintance. 
But since we are forced to, let us say further that we 
hope “to say good morning to them in a land fairer 
than this.” 

i. Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p.516. 






V 






* 



# 

A 





i 

THOMAS 











#• 



ST. THOMAS. 


( 





V -v 





THOMAS 


The apostle Thomas was a native of Antioch in 
Syria, and a Jew(i). When or how he came to 
Judea, we have no knowledge. But it was in Judea 
that he became an apostle of our Lord. There is 
something of interest about his name. Eusebius 
says his name was Judas, “but it is most likely that 
is but a confusion with the name of Thaddeus, or 
it may be that Thomas was his surname. The word 
Thoma means ‘a twin, ’ and so it is translated. There 
is a tradition that he had a twin sister whose name 
was Lydia”( 2 ). This might have been that Lydia 
whose home was by the side of the running river(3), 
and who was the first European convert of St. 
Paul( 4 ), though her native place was Thyatira in 
Asia(5). She also once lived at Philippi, and was 
the hostess there of St. Paul, during his first visit at 
Philippi. She was a Jewess, and said to have been 
very wealthy(6). Her parents might have been liv- 

1. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary, 

2. Ibid. 

3. The name of the river is Gaggitas instead of Strymon, as is insisted by 
many of the German commentators. See Conybeare and Howson’s Life and 
Epistles of St. Paul, p. 254. 

4. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 

5. Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul, pp. 254 and 255, 

6. Smith’s Bible Dictionary, unabridged. 

159 




160 


THOMAS 


ing at Antioch, at the time of the birth of the apostle 
Thomas, and have moved to Thyatira afterward. But 
as long as it is altogether conjecture that she was in 
any wise related to the apostle, I will drop the matter 
and take up a more important part of his history, 
than his name or relations. 

That he was a faithful follower of Jesus while he 
was on earth after his call to the ministry, is evident 
from different passages in the New Testament. At 
the time that Jesus heard of the death of Lazarus 
and spoke of going to his house, Thomas said to the 
other apostles, “Let us also go that we may die with 
him;” showing clearly that there was some danger 
in Jesus attempting the journey alone; yet signifying 
a willingness on the part of himself to go with him 
even unto death. 

But little is said of him in the sacred writings, 
farther than that he was clear and outspoken as to 
his disbelief of the fact, that the Saviour was risen 
after his crucifixion. That he did doubt that he was 
risen from the dead, does not appear to me as either 
his being weak in the faith, or obstinate about believ¬ 
ing what his brother apostles should tell him. For 
this rising from the dead was something that he, 
Thomas, was not expecting, and not expecting it nor 
having ever understood that he was to rise again, after 
the crucifixion, he could not help doubting it. St. 
John says in his gospel that he himself did not under¬ 
stand that he was to rise again, and if he with all of his 
intimacy in life with Jesus, never understood from 
him that he was to rise again after his crucifixion and 


THOMAS 


161 


burial, how much less should we expect Thomas to 
have understood it. 

His saying after he was told by the other apostles 
who had seen Jesus after he was risen, “Except I 
shall see in his hands the prints of the nails, and put 
my fingers into the prints of the nails, and thrust my 
hands into his side, I will not believe,” is all very 
natural for an honest, intelligent man, occupying his 
position at the time. And not believing it, he very 
honestly and properly said so. 

The cause of Christianity has ever been and must 
ever be strengthened, by the unbelief of Thomas as 
expressed by him on that occasion, when coupled 
with his subsequent conversion to the fact. This 
one act of doubting shows him to have been an honest 
man, and also an intelligent one. He was not willing 
to accept as a fact, a thing which he had never seen, 
but to the contrary, had seen all his life that it could 
not be so. And consequently he very properly 
demanded the proof of it. When the proof came, 
again like an honest man, he believed and acknowl¬ 
edged it. He even went so far as to call his Saviour 
then, his “God.” This was more than any other 
apostle ever called him. 

After the ascension of the Saviour, Thomas 
preached the gospel in Judea it is thought, until the 
dispersion of the Christian church at Jerusalem(i). 

He then repaired to Parthia, the province assigned 
him for the field of his future work in the ministry. 
We are told by Sempronius and other ancient writers, 


i. Fleetwood, p. 520. 


162 


THOMAS 


that he also preached the gospel to the Medes, Per¬ 
sians, Carminians, Hyrcani, Bactarians and neighbor¬ 
ing nations. That while he was preaching in Persia 
he there met the Magi, or those wise men who made 
that long journey from the east at our Saviour’s birth 
to worship him, and to have baptized them and then 
carried them along with him to aid him in his work 
of the ministry(i). 

He then left Persia and went to Ethiopia, where he 
preached the gospel and worked miracles by which he 
convinced many of the natives, that he had his com¬ 
mission from on high. He traveled throughout this 
country and then went to India. 

The historian Fleetwood says, that “when the 
Portuguese first visited these countries, after their dis¬ 
covery of a passage by the Cape of Good Hope, they 
received the following particulars, partly from con¬ 
stant and uncontroverted traditions, preserved by 
the Christians in those parts, namely: that St. 
Thomas came first to Socotora, an island in the Ara¬ 
bian Sea, and thence to Cranganor, where having con¬ 
verted many from the error of their ways, he traveled 
further into the east, and having successfully preached 
the gospel, returned to the Kingdom of Coromandel, 
where at Malipur, the metropolis of the kingdom, not 
far from the mouth of the Ganges, he began to erect 
a place for divine worship, till prohibited by the idol¬ 
atrous priest and Sagamo, prince of that country. 
But after performing several miracles, the work was 
suffered to proceed, and Sagamo himself embraced the 


i. Fleetwood, p. 520 . 


THOMAS 


103 


Christian faith, whose example was soon followed by 
great numbers of his friends and subjects. ” 

The success which attended the work of the apos¬ 
tle here was however watched by the Brahmins, who 
were jealous of him for fear that the doctrine which 
he was teaching would detract from their established 
methods of worship, until it would completely destroy 
them. They therefore conspired against him and re¬ 
solved to kill him in order to put an end to his preach¬ 
ing. This they did. 

His death was occasioned in this manner: There 
was a tomb in the outskirts of Malipur to which 
Thomas was in the habit of going at evening, and 
engaging in private prayer. The Brahmins knowing 
of this habit of his, watched him as he went out one 
evening, and having armed themselves for the pur¬ 
pose, waited until he was down on his knees engaged 
in prayer, and then threw a shower of darts at him 
which so badly wounded him that he was unable to 
either defend himself by resistance or retreat. Then 
as in the case of the Roman soldier at the time of 
the crucifixion of Christ, one of them, a priest of their 
order, went up to him and ran a spear through him. 
Thus ended the life of one of the most faithful of 
the twelve apostles. His body was taken and buried 
in a church there which he had lately built by the aid 
of the Christians, whom he had converted while he 
had been preaching to them(i). History tells us that 
this church was afterward improved until it became 
a building of great magnificence. 

i. Kitto, p. 631. 

11 


164 


Thomas 


St. Chrysostom says that, “St. Thomas, who at first 
was the weakest and most incredulous of all the 
apostles, became, through Christ’s condescending to 
satisfy his scruples, and the power of the Divine 
grace, the most active and invincible of them all; trav¬ 
eling over most parts of the world, and living without 
fear in the midst of barbarous nations, through the 
efficacy of the Almighty arm, which can give power to 
the faint, and to them that have no might, and thus 
make the weaker vessels to perform acts of the great¬ 
est difficulty and moment.” 




«' 

* 


; * 


! 





1 


• I 

I 

1 


MATTHEW 







6 


1 









MATTHEW 


The apostle and evangelist Matthew is the same as 
Levi, Luke v: 27-29. At the time of his call to the 
ministry, he was engaged as tax collector at Caper¬ 
naum, his head-quarters being at a house called the 
“receipt of custom.” Immediately upon his call he 
arose and carried the Saviour to his house, and gave 
a great feast and had a number of his friends and 
acquaintances present at the feast. These friends of 
Matthew were principally tax-gatherers, that is, 
men who were engaged in the same business that he 
himself was engaged in(i). 

He was the son of one Alpheus. This is all we 
know of his parentage. He was a man of education 
and business habits, as both his position in life and 
his gospel writings go to show. If we will look at 
this man in the true light in which all the historians 
and the New Testament show him, we will learn a 
great deal from him. He was a “tax-gatherer,” that 
is, he collected the taxes off of the people that went 
to the support of his own government, as well as to 
the support of the Roman government. He, in order 
to hold this important trust, had to be fitted for 
such a place by education, and also by an honest incli¬ 
nation. For I do not think there has ever been a 

x. See the bead notes at the beginning of Clarke’s Commentaries on Matt. 

167 


168 


MATTHEW 


time in the history of human government, when the 
tax-gatherer was not placed under a heavy bond for 
the forthcoming of all public moneys, coming into 
his hands. Consequently, in this case, I presume 
that he was a bonded officer. It is also fair to pre¬ 
sume that his sureties looked well into his qualifica¬ 
tions and honest inclinations, before assuming that 
suretyship which would bind them for his debts, obli¬ 
gations, and application of such funds. 

It is also the opinion of all the writers both ancient 
and modern that he was a man who was, familiarly 
speaking, in good circumstances(i). His employ¬ 
ment was an easy one, and one no doubt that he had 
sought for a life-time calling. It was profitable to 
him, and he knew that so long as he attended to this 
business, as required of him, that he was certain of 
a good income, and an easy life, and a comfortable 
one. Such was his condition in life when called; nor 
was he ignorant of the fact, that this call meant for 
him to exchange wealth for poverty, ease for hard¬ 
ship, certainty for uncertainty in this world, and 
wealthy and powerful friends, for a weak and de¬ 
spised Saviour. Yet with all these odds against him, 
he entered the field voluntarily and cheerfully— 
a field of which the drifting sands of nearly nineteen 
hundred years have failed to fill the furrows. 

He is supposed to have been a Galilean, but of what 
tribe is not known(2). If he was ever married we 
have no record of it; and further, if he was akin to 

i. Fleetwood says that he was rich: p. 516. 

a. Fleetwood, p. 516. 


MATTHEW 


160 


any of the apostles we do not know of it. He ap¬ 
pears to have been an intelligent man, and one well 
educated. 

During the ministry of Jesus, neither Matthew nor 
any of the evangelical writers, tell us anything of 
Matthew. After the crucifixion, resurrection and 
ascension, the ancient writers are pretty well agreed 
that Matthew remained in Judea for about eight 
years, and preached the gospel during this time. It 
then became necessary for him to leave that country 
and go to another called Ethiopia. Before leaving 
Judea on this journey, the converted Jews of that 
country asked him to write out the gospel as he under¬ 
stood it and as he had been preaching it to them, for 
the last eight years(i.) He did so, and wrote it in 
the Hebrew language. This gospel of his thus writ¬ 
ten, he left with them. How many copies of it he 
wrote we do not know. But that he wrote a number 
is evident, for they were written for a people that 
were scattered already over a large scope of country 
and constantly becoming more so. 

These copies of his gospel, were used by the young 
or new converts, who took up the ministry; for we 
find that when Barnabas left Judea and returned to 
Cyprus his native country, to preach to the inhabi¬ 
tants there he used one of the gospels written 
by Matthew. All of the historians tell us that this 
man Barnabas was, while preaching in Cyprus, 
seized upon and stoned to death for his preaching; 
and that after his death his kinsman, John Mark, 


i. Fleetwood and Kitto. 


170 


MATTHE IV 


buried him there in a cave. That afterward in the 
year A. D. 485, during the reign of the Emperor 
Zeno, his body was found lying in the cave just as his 
kinsman John Mark had left it, with a copy of the gos¬ 
pel written by Matthew in his (Matthew’s) handwrit¬ 
ing in the Hebrew, lying across his breast(i). 

From this we get an idea of the gospel as used by 
these early ministers. Some were using Matthew’s gos¬ 
pel, some that of Luke, Mark and so on. These differ¬ 
ent gospels were not collected together and bound in 
one common volume as we have them to-day, until 
long after the death of their respective authors. That 
of Matthew was evidently the first that was written 
and the first that became circulated in this way. It 
was written from the best data we have, about A. D. 
41(2). To what extent it was circulated we have but 
little idea. 

After he left Judea, he traveled through several 
countries and especially Ethiopia. There is but little 
known of him even by the ancients, after his leaving 
Judea. It is known however, that he suffered mar¬ 
tyrdom in a city called Naddabar, in Ethiopia^). 
It is also conceded pretty generally that he was 
killed by a halbert—that is, he was killed with a 
heavy club in which there was fastened a sharp- 
edged knife, so that when it struck, it would cut and 
at the same time deliver a heavy blow. 

x. Kitto, p. 630. 

2. See head note to Clarke’s Commentary on Matthew. Also Smith’s Una¬ 
bridged Bible Dictionary, edition of 1890. 


3. Fleetwood, p. 517. 


MATT HE IV 


171 


Some of the eastern churches commemorate his 
martyrdom on the 21st day of September; but the 
year is not given. If there was ever any church 
erected to his memory, we do not know of it. Nor 
do we know of his remains ever having been removed 
from the place of their first interment. Thus ends 
all that we know of the history of this great apostle, 
whose name universally stands at the head of the 
apostolic writers. 






JAMES THE LESS 


. 4 * « 



4 









JAMES THE LESS 


The apostle James the Less, or as he is sometimes 
called, James the Just, was so called to distinguish 
him from the apostle, James the Great. He was a 
Jew, and a native, as is generally believed, of Judea. 
He was a brother of two other apostles—that is, he 
and Simon the Zealot, and Jude were all brothers 
and all apostles of Jesus Christ. 

In giving the parentage therefore of one, I give it 
of all three. And I will here say, that there is such a 
marked difference of opinion among the ancient writ¬ 
ers as to their parentage, that I deem it but fair and 
proper to give what both divisions of the ancient 
writers say about them. 

St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom and some others 
say that they were the sons of Joseph, afterward the 
husband of the Virgin Mary, by his first wife, whose 
name was Escha, the daughter of Aggi, brother to 
Zacharias the father of John the Baptist. That he, 
Joseph, had married this first wife Escha, under these 
circumstances. She had been left the childless widow 
of his brother Alpheus (sometimes called Clopas), and 
under the Jewish law, it became incumbent upon 
Joseph to marry her; and also by the Jewish law the 
children born from that marriage were called the 
children of the first husband; or the dead man’s name 
175 


11 6 


JAMES THE LESS 


was given to them. That by this marriage there 
were seven children born to him—four sons, whose 
names were James, Joses, Jude and Simon; and three 
daughters, Esther, Thamer and Salome. This Salome 
was the mother of the apostles John and James, the 
sons of Zebedee. That after the death of Escha, he 
married the Virgin Mary(i). 

On the other hand there are a vast array of author¬ 
ities who say that these seven children were the 
children of Alpheus, who married Mary, a sister of 
the Virgin Mary(2). With the amount of authority 
on either side we may safely say, that it will ever be 
in doubt as to who were the parents of these three 
apostles. One side of them make the three apostles 
the nephews of the Virgin Mary. The other side make 
them her step-children. I am of the opinion that 
the latter is correct. 

Of the apostle James the Less, we know nothing 
individually, until the spring of the year thirty, 
according to the common era. He and his younger 
brother Jude were at this time called to the minis¬ 
try. We hear no more of him until after the cruci¬ 
fixion and resurrection. At some time during the 
forty days that intervened between the resurrection 
and ascension, we are told by St. Paul, that the 
Lord appeared to him individually, I Cor. xv. 7, 
though none of the other evangelical writers men¬ 
tion this appearance of the Lord to James. 

He here disappears from us again for about eight 


x. Fleetwood's Lives of the Apostles, p. 521. 

2. Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. Edition of 189a 


JAMES THE LESS 


177 


years, and the next we see of him, he is Bishop of the 
church at Jerusalem. He remained as Bishop of 
this church until his death, and presided over many 
a meeting of the apostles and Christian converts. 
\ v ^en St. Paul made his first visit to Jerusalem, after 
his conversion, (which was three years after that 
event), James the Less was Bishop of the church at 
that place(i). It was at this time that James and 
Peter extended to Paul the right-hand of fellowship, 
after some hesitancy upon their part. They still 
remembered him as a persecutor, more than any¬ 
thing else, and had it not been for Barnabas who was 
a school-mate of St. Paul’s, the presumption is that 
James and Peter would have witheld the hand of 
fellowship, at least on this occasion. 

He, James, continued his residence in Jerusalem and 
his work in the upbuilding of the church there, the 
remainder of his life. During this time he lent the 
whole of his great ability to teaching and preaching 
the religion of his Lord. It was during this interval 
that he wrote his gospel entitled “The general Epistle 
of James”(2). There is, however, a great diversity 
of opinion among the Bible commentators concerning 
this book. They differ both as to its author and as 
to the time it was written. However, modern writers 
are pretty generally agreed that James the Less was 
its author, and that he wrote it at Jerusalem toward 
the latter end of his life. The time of his writing is 
variously fixed from A. D. 45 to A. D. 61, though 


1. Smith's Bible Dictionary. 

2. Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 647. 


178 JAMES THE LESS 

the prevailing opinion is that it was written about A. 
D. 57 . 

About this year, 57, St. Paul made his appearance 
again in Jerusalem, and while there got himself into 
a great trouble with some of the Jews, who were the 
enemies of the Christians in general and himself in 
particular. So bitter were their feelings against 
him that they attempted to kill him in the court-yard 
of the Temple, and were only prevented by the timely 
arrival and interference of Claudius Lysias, the officer 
in charge of the Roman troops stationed at the time 
in Jerusalem. This officer, so soon as he had taken 
St. Paul from them, immediately put him in the bar¬ 
racks for safe-keeping. The Jews, however, laid a 
plot to take Paul out at night and mob him. This 
fact was made known to Claudius Lysias by a nephew 
of St. Paul’s, and to prevent his being mobbed, 
Claudius Lysias had him taken out of the barracks at 
9 o’clock at night and sent under a strong guard to 
Cesarea, to there be tried before Felix the Gov¬ 
ernor^). 

As soon as the Jews found out that he had been 
removed and that they were beaten and the prime 
object of their hatred had been placed beyond their 
reach, they cast about to find another victim upon 
which they might satisfy their hatred. The apostle, 
James the Less, being prominent in religious affairs 
was naturally the one for them to center upon. He 
was accordingly arrested together with some others 

1. Smith, Fleetwood, Kitto and others too numerous to mention, all oon* 
cur in the details of the apostle’s death. 


JAMES THE LESS 


179 


and carried before the Jewish Sanhedrim and charged 
with being violators of the law. After a trial, he was 
found guilty, and told that if he would make a renun¬ 
ciation of his faith, and renounce it in the most pub¬ 
lic manner, that they would spare him from the tort¬ 
ures that he would otherwise have to endure. 

They then led him to the top of the battlements of 
the Temple and threatened to throw him down if he 
did not, then and there, make a public renunciation of 
the faith he had in Jesus Christ, in order that the 
people might hear him. But to their surprise when 
they had reached the height of the battlements, and 
the people were assembled in large numbers to hear 
, him, he at once began to confess the faith of Christ, 
in the presence of those who came to hear his recant¬ 
ation. This so incensed the members of the Sanhe¬ 
drim, that they ordered him to be thrown down head¬ 
long from where he stood. This was immediately 
done, and the fall not killing him outright, he rose 
upon his knees and began praying to God for his 
persecutors, in the manner in which the Martyr 
Stephen did. But his enemies, who were too hard¬ 
hearted to be reached by as soft means as prayer, 
commenced to stone him, and continued to pour a 
shower of stones upon him until life was nearly 
extinct, when one of them gathered a fuller’s club(i) 
and with it beat his brains out. 

i. A fuller’s club is what is now known by some of the country washer¬ 
women as a paddling-stick. It is a long, heavy wooden paddle, used in washing 
clothes, to beat the dirt out of them with, after they have been soaped and 
boiled. These paddles are now generally gone out of use, but were in use from 
long before the days of Christ until the modern washing machines have dis¬ 
placed them. They were generally made of a heavy kind of wood, such as oak, 
hickory and beech. 

12 


180 


JAMES THE LESS 


Thus ended the apostle James, known in history 
as James the Less. He died, or rather he was mur¬ 
dered in this brutal manner, in the 96th year of his 
age, and twenty-four years after the ascension of our 
Lord(i). His remains were buried in a tomb on the 
mount of Olives, which he had prepared during his 
lifetime(2). 

While we do not find any mention made in history 
of this apostle being a married man, yet I am of the 
opinion that he was a man of family. This opin¬ 
ion is chiefly based upon what St Paul said in I Cor. 
ix: 5. He, Paul, is there citing to the Christian peo¬ 
ple of Corinth the privileges that an apostle as such 
had, and among other things speaks of the Lord’s 
brethren as being married men. These reputed 
brethren of the Lord we all know to be James, Jude 
and Simon, and Paul there speaks in such a manner 
as to leave little or no doubt that they were married 
men. In fact, the verse strongly intimates that all 
the apostles were married men. 

We have further, in support of this view of it, what 
Clemens Alexandrinus said in his book. He, in speak¬ 
ing of himself there says that “He eats, and drinks, 
and marries—having the apostle for his example(3). 

We also find in Mosheim’s History of Christianity, 
that Domitidn had the nephew of that Judas, who 
was called the brother of Christ, brought to Rome 
and closely examined, concerning the kingdom which 


4 i 


1. Kitto’s Lives of the Apostles, p. 626. 

2 . Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 

3. See Adam Clarke’s Commentaries, vol. 6: p. 236. 


JAMES THE LESS 


181 


Christ had claimed to set up, and what kind of 
kingdom it was, etc., etc.(i). The question might 
with propriety be asked: whose children were the 
nephews of Jude? It is true they might have been 
the children of a sister, and again they might have 
been the sons of James or Simon. 

i See Mosheim's History of the first three centuries of Christianity, voL x: 
p. 144, note 4. 




ft 









\ 



f 


1 

1 


\ 



» 


! 











I 



i 





JUDE 


» 




f 



I 


u • 



f'~. ... .. 


\ ‘ 


,1 


; 













% 











JUDE 


The apostle Jude is mentioned by several names in 
the New Testament. Sometimes Jude, sometimes 
Judas, and again Thaddeus and Lebbeus. He was 
the youngest of the three brothers; and as I have 
dwelt already for some time upon the subject of 
their parentage, I will here quote from the historian 
Fleetwood, in order that you may see who he thought 
was their father. He says, in speaking of Jude, “He 
was brother to St. James the Less, afterward Bishop 
of Jerusalem, being the son of Joseph, the reputed 
father of Christ, by a former wife.” 

He and his brother, James the Less, became apos¬ 
tles of our Lord at the same time, A. D. 30. The 
next we see of him, is to find him numbered with the 
twelve apostles. We see him again at Christ’s last 
supper, where Christ in talking to his apostles in re¬ 
gard to his death and resurrection said that, though 
he would return to them after his crucifixion, the 
“world should see him no more;” to which Jude 
replied: “Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thy¬ 
self to us, and not unto the world?” 

He is the author of that book in the New Testa¬ 
ment styled “The General Epistle of Jude.” When 
or where he wrote this book is not known, though 
many of the ancient writers have attempted to fix its 
185 


186 


JUDE 


date. It is fixed by some between 64 and 66, by 
others between 71 and 72, and by others between 
70 and 75; and still again as late as the year A. D. 
90. The ancient authors have exercised themselves 
a great deal about this epistle, and its author. Origen, 
who wrote in the third century, speaks in the highest 
terms of it, and its genuineness. For a fuller account 
of the Epistle, I would refer the reader to Adam 
Clarke’s commentaries upon the same; Vol. vi. 

There is however one thing in the epistle which I 
notice, and to which I invite your attention, and that 
is this: He styles himself “Jude, the brother of 
James.” He does not call himself an apostle but 
simply, “Jude, the brother of James.” Now why 
does he add “The brother of James?” To my mind 
the reason is this: his brother James was or had been 
bishop at Jerusalem, and was, in consequence of this 
position, known throughout the Christian world; and 
Jude, being of less fame and notoriety in the world, 
simply referred to him, in order to let the people bet¬ 
ter understand who he, Jude, was. It is and always 
has been a fact, that people who have kin-folks of 
great fame and respectability, like to let strangers to 
the fact of their kinship, know of it; and it is also a 
fact that strangers often have a better opinion of the 
narrator, after they have learned who he or she is, 
than they had before. Especially so, if this informa¬ 
tion is not given in a boasting manner. 

This theory of mine, if correct, would forever put 
to rest that other theory of some, that these three 
brothers were also the brothers of Christ. For had 


JUDE 


187 


that been so, Jude would have said that he was the 
brother of Jesus, instead of saying, that he was the 
brother of James, Jesus being of so much greater 
fame throughout the world. 

We are told by the historian Paulinas, that the 
province of Lydia fell to the share of Jude in the 
apostolic division of the provinces But that before 
going thither, he first traveled up and down Judea, 
preaching the gospel through Galilee, and then 
through Samaria into Idumea, and on, to and through 
the cities of Arabia and the neighboring countries, 
and afterward in Syria and Mesopotamia(i). 

We are also told by Nicephorus that he preached 
at Edessa, where Abagarus governed, and where 
Thaddeus, one of the seventy, had already sown the 
seeds of Christianity. That here he perfected what 
the others had begun, and having by his sermons 
and miracles established the religion of Jesus Christ, 
he died in peace; but others say that he was 
slain by one Berytus, and then buried there in 
an honorable manner. The writers of the Latin 
church are however unanimous in declaring that he 
traveled into Persia, where, after a great success in 
his apostolical ministry for many years, he was at 
last, for his freely and openly reproving the supersti¬ 
tious rites and customs of the Magi, cruelly put to 
death. 


z. Fleetwood, p. 326. 



SIMON 









ST. SIMON, THE ZEALOT. 




SIMON 


The apostle Simon, commonly called the Canaan- 
ite, was a brother to James the Less and Jude. 
It is generally believed that he lived at Cana in Gali¬ 
lee, and that he was the bridegroom at the marriage- 
feast mentioned by St. John, at which our Saviour 
turned water into wine(i). But if this about his 
marriage be so, it is all that we know of it. For 
nowhere else do we hear or find anything said or even 
indicating that he was a man of family. 

He is sometimes styled Simon the Zealot. This 
name was given to him because of his either belong¬ 
ing to or being in sympathy with, a certain sect of 
the Jews, that termed themselves, “the Zealots.” 
But, after he became an apostle of Jesus, we hear of 
nothing but a steadfast fidelity on his part until his 
death. 

The Zealots were a fearful people, and were one of 
the principal causes of the defeat of the Jews, when 
the Roman army invaded that country, under the 
Roman General Vespasian. Josephus gives a very 
large account of them, and the mischief done by them 
at the time. 

Simon was made bishop of the church at Jerusalem 
immediately after the death of his brother James. 


i. Kitto, p. 631. 


191 


192 


SIMON 


How long he continued to act as bishop of the church 
there, we do not know. But it is reasonable to sup¬ 
pose that he remained there as bishop, until the time 
mentioned in sacred history, when all, or nearly all 
of the Christian people, left Jerusalem, that it might 
receive the doom of the threatening Romans. From 
the best data we have, he assumed the duties of bishop 
in the year A. D. 64, and we know that in A. D. 70, 
the Roman army under the command of Titus 
destroyed the city of Jerusalem. So, if he continued 
as bishop of the church as long as he could have 
stayed there, it would only have been six years. 

But just at what time he left Jerusalem and where 
he immediately repaired to, we do not know. Some 
say that he went into Egypt, Cyrene, and Africa, 
preaching the gospel to the inhabitants of those re¬ 
mote countries; that he remained there for quite a 
while. Just how long, however, cannot be ascertained. 
Other historians of his say that after spending a num¬ 
ber of years there, he took ship and sailed to the 
frozen regions of the north, preaching the gospel to 
the inhabitants of the west and north, as far as Brit¬ 
ain; that in Britain he converted a great number of 
people to the religion of Jesus Christ; and that in 
doing so, he sustained great hardships and endured 
great privations and persecutions until he was, at last, 
crucified by the barbarous inhabitants of that island, 
and buried there, but no one knows where. 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 







JUDAS ISCARIOT. 











JUDAS ISCARIOT 


Judas Iscariot was one of the twelve apostles of our 
Lord, who had been duly chosen by him for that pur¬ 
pose, together with a number of other apostles, out 
of a large assembly of Christ’s disciples or converts. 
Luke, vi: 13. From the time of his call until his 
death, he remained with Christ and his brother apos¬ 
tles, and from the biblical account of him, appears to 
have been obedient to all orders directed to him, as 
an apostle and as treasurer of the party. He was a 
Jew by birth and education. He was the son of one 
Simon. If he was a man of a family we have no 
knowledge whatever of it. The presumption is, how¬ 
ever, that he had no family. 

He does not appear to have attracted much atten¬ 
tion from Christ, or any of the other apostles, until 
shortly before the crucifixion, other than to have made 
the impression upon St. John’s mind that he was a 
thief. John xii: 6. This was a serious charge to be 
made by an apostle against his brother apostle, and I 
have always been perplexed to know what this charge 
of “theft” was based upon. Judas was the treasurer, 
and as such received and disbursed moneys that were 
donated to the apostles for charitable purposes. If 
he had ever embezzled or in anywise misappropri¬ 
ated any part of this fund, we do not know anything 
195 


13 


1 . 9(3 


JUDAS 1 SC A RlO f 


of it; for there is no other mention of his being a 
thief, in either sacred or profane history. The 
charge made, in this instance, is made in such 
vague and general terms that we cannot tell any¬ 
thing about it. John does not say what he had 
stolen, nor what was its value, nor where he had 
stolen it, nor from whom. This would then lead 
us to believe that John evidently, in this charge, re 
ferred to some act on the part of Judas which ante* 
dated Judas’ call to the ministry, and not to an act 
committed by him since his call. For if he stole any¬ 
thing after his call, he evidently stole it out of the 
funds, of which he was custodian as treasurer, and 
we have no record of his taking anything from this 
source. There is no mention made anywhere of his 
ever speculating in either real or personal property; 
nor of his dressing in a costlier manner than that of 
his brother apostles. 

On the other hand, it cannot be said that John 
made this charge against him on the supposition that 
he, Judas, wanted the ointment sold and the proceeds 
placed in the treasury in order that he might after¬ 
ward steal it away. For if that had been the case, 
St. John would have said that he, Judas, had said this 
because he wanted to steal it; and not have said, 
“because he was a thief.” Furthermore, the charge 
seems to be made in reply to a statement which Judas 
had just uttered, concerning what seemed to him a 
useless waste of a valuable ointment, at a time and 
place where it could have been more appropriately 
used. There was a supper given at the house of 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


id* 


Martha and Mary(i), two wealthy sisters living at 
Bethany. At that supper the Saviour is the central 
figure. The rude Judean enters, and finds the night 
air of that place highly perfumed with a costly odor. 
He investigates the matter and finds that Mary had 
just perfumed the Saviour with a box of ointment 
worth “three hundred pence”—a goodly sum of money 
to be wasted on one whom it could neither purify 
nor strengthen, and Judas so regarding it, expressed 
himself accordingly. 

Nor are we to wonder that Judas was astonished 
at this proceeding, for he evidently remembered hav¬ 
ing heard Christ on a former occasion, when he said 
to the young man, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and 
sell what thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou 
shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow 
me.” Matt. I, xix:2i. From such repeated sayings 
as this he, Judas, had learned that it was right 
and proper for those who had an excess of worldly 
goods, to dispose of it and give the proceeds to the 
poor and needy, and it was for this that he was 
clamoring at the time that St. John called him a 
thief. Johnxii:6. Nor was Judas the only one of this 
opinion, for St. Matthew says not. “But when his 
disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To 
what purpose is this waste?” Matt. xxvi:8. Yet 
Judas was the only one who had nerve to call for an 
explanation of the matter; and as soon as this expla¬ 
nation was given, “then said Jesus, Let her alone: 
against the day of my burying hath she kept this.” 

i. See the name Lazarus, Smith’s Unabridged Bible Dictionary. 


JUDAS ISC A RIO f 


:ids 

John xii: 7, he hushes up, and we hear no more coril- 
plaint on his part about the matter. But I do main¬ 
tain that until Christ did make the explanation to 
him, his objection to the waste, as it appeared to 
him, was well taken. 

Take it for granted that John told the truth, and 
that Judas was a thief; that would not justify Mary 
in wasting a great amount of valuable ointment there 
that night on Jesus, when there was, perhaps, within 
a stone’s throw of her, widows and children suffering 
from actual hunger. Let the facts in regard to Judas’ 
dishonesty be what they may, I think that he, under 
all the circumstances, had a right to object to the 
wasting of that costly ointment in the manner in 
which it was being done as he understood it at the 
time he urged his objection. And from the fact that.he 
did object, and further the reason that he gave for that 
objection, “Why was not this ointment sold for three 
hundred pence, and given to the poor,” John xii: 5, 
goes to show that his objection was based upon 
Christian motives. 

He, Judas, was present, and did partake of the 
Lord’s Supper with his Lord and the other eleven 
apostles, on the night preceding the crucifixion. 
Matt. xxvi:27. Mark 1:14-23. You are all familiar 
with the manner of his death as narrated in the New 
Testament. St. Matthew says that when he, Judas, 
saw Christ carried before Pontius Pilate, which was 
the last court of appeal, and there saw him “con¬ 
demned,” it so grieved him, that he forthwith 
returned the thirty pi°ces of silver to those had 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


199 


given them to get him to betray Christ, “and went and 
hanged himself.” Matthew further adds that the 
chief priest took this money so returned, and bought 
the Potter’s field with it, to bury strangers in; and 
that the field is called “The field of blood” unto this 
day. Matt. xxvii:7-8. 

The historian Luke gives a little different account of 
this in Acts i: 18-19. But when we understand the cir¬ 
cumstances under which Luke wrote this, we will see 
that his account of the matter harmonizes with that of 
Matthew and this seeming difference between the two 
authors dwindles into nothing. Acts 1:18 reads thus: 
“Now this man ‘Judas’ purchased a field with the 
reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst 
asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” 
Adam Clarke on this verse says: “‘ Purchased a field 
with the reward of iniquity. ’ Probably Judas did not 
purchase the field himself, but the money for which 
he sold his Lord was thus applied. In ordinary con¬ 
versation, we often attribute to a man what is the 
consequence of his own actions, though such conse¬ 
quence was never designed nor wished for by him¬ 
self: thus we say of a man embarking in a hazardous 
enterprise, he is gone to seek his death ; of one whose 
conduct has been ruinous to his reputation, he has dis¬ 
graced himself; of another who has suffered much in 
consequence of his crimes, he has purchased repentance 
at a high price , etc ., etc. All these though undesigned 
were consequences of certain acts, as the buying of the 
field was the consequence of Judas’ treason.” 

“And falling he ad loner, he burst as under f P is 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


fcOG 

very likely that the eighteenth and nineteenth verses 
are not the words of Peter, but of the historian, St. 
Luke, and should be read in a parenthesis, and then 
the seventeenth and twentieth verses will make a con¬ 
nected sense.” 

I concur with Mr. Clarke, in his theory, that these 
were the words of the historian St. Luke, and when 
we further consider that they were written thirty 
years after the event happened, we can see how time 
had allowed the additional name of the place, Acel¬ 
dama, for Luke gives this additional name to the 
place, and says that it means “The field of blood.” 
Matthew wrote his account of it eight years after its 
occurrence, and said at the time it is “called the field 
of blood.” So we see that it is but one and the 
same place at last. 

Now in regard to the hanging: Matthew says that 
“he hanged himself,” but does not say what he hanged 
himself with, nor what he hanged himself to, nor how 
long he hung there after he was dead, nor whether 
he was taken down, or fell down, and if so whether 
his bowels gushed out or not. In fact he does not 
say anything about this part of it. Yet we know 
that he had to come down from where he was hang¬ 
ing by some process or other. I find in the Catholic 
Bible that he hanged himself “with a halter.” I also 
find in Dr. Wm. Smith’s Bible Dictionary, under the 
word Aceldama, that he hanged himself from a large 
fig-tree. “Areulfus saw the large fig-tree where 
Judas hanged himself.”—“This tree grew in that plat 
of ground called the field of blood or Aceldama, 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


201 


which is on the steep southern face of the valley or 
ravine of Hinnon, near its eastern end, on a narrow 
plateau, more than half-way up the hillside.” 

Eventful day in the history of this man. The 
Saviour of the world had been crucified. His blood 
had been used this day as water, to satisfy the fiend¬ 
ish fever of the priesthood. His followers scattered 
and even hid away, for fear of a like fate attending 

them. His opponents gloated over the victory 
achieved. The vast crowds, whose curiosity had led 
them to witness the execution, have dispersed and 
repaired to their respective homes. Night is coming 
on; where shall Judas go to now? Not a friend in 
the wide, wide world to sympathize with him. Jew 
and Gentile alike hate him. What can he do? All, 
all lost. Despair seizes him. He procures a halter 
and slowly wends his way up the mountain-side, 
insensible to the fact that at each step he takes, the 
buzz and hum of the busy city behind him is slowly 
dying away, until a death-like stillness pervades, when 
he finds himself at this out-of-the-way place, seats 
himself upon a rock and drops his head between his 
hands. His thoughts wander back over his past life 
again, and I doubt not that his tears flowed unre¬ 
strained. His pride humbled, his spirit broken, his 
hopes all blasted now. His memory found but one 
resting-place. It was perchance that of childhood, 
when he was without sin, and unacquainted with the 
sins of the world. But even in visiting this in mem¬ 
ory, he missed the fond mother who caressed him 

then, and the indulgent father whose patient training 
betokened his affection for his boy. 


202 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


“If I could only die,” said he. “If I could only go 
back and be as I was then, for one hour—and hold 
my father’s hand in mine again, and see all the house¬ 
hold about me, as in that old innocent time—and 
then die. My God, I am humbled, my pride is all 
gone, my stubborn heart repents—have pity”! But 
mother, father, household scenes and childhood are 
all gone forever, and in their place and stead have crept 
a manhood that has, in the march of time, exchanged 
the innocence of youth for the sinfulness of a riper • 
age; the caresses of a mother and the indulgences of 
a father, for the curses of a world—a world too 
much enraged for me to attempt to longer live in. 
What shall I do? I have repented. I have sorrowed. 

I have returned to them the money which they gave 
me. I have told them that he was innocent, but all 
this will not bring him back, nor heal the breach 
here between me and my brother-man. I will fly .to 
Him who has the power to pardon all, and there tell 
Him all, and how it was, and why I did what I have 
done, and beg His pardon and implore His mercy. 
And so saying, he adjusts the noose and swings from 
the shore of time to that of eternity. 

There he hangs until the gray twilight of evening 
mellows into absolute darkness. Not a sound dis¬ 
turbs the stillness of the night in this lonely place, 
save an occasional shrill whistle of the night-owl. 
By and by the moon rising finds him hanging there, 
and casts a long shadow from him on the ground. 
The night wanes and finally gives place to the ap¬ 
proach cf morning. When the full light of that 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


203 


spring morning dawned, the form still hung there. 
The sun rose and this time made its way through the 
heavens without being darkened, with its full rays 
falling upon the body as it hung there. This rotary 
scene continued from day to day, the weather 
meanwhile growing warmer and warmer, until finally 
some of the fastenings gave way, and owing to the 
advanced state of decomposition the body fell, and in 
falling “all his bowels gushed out.” 

This I hope will clear away the seeming conflict in 
the two statements made by the two authors, in 
regard to the manner of this man’s death. We 
should also remember that what Matthew said per¬ 
tained to the beginning of the hanging, while what 
Luke said pertained to its ending. 

Thus ended a man in a strange and mysterious 
manner. He evidently thought that he was the 
cause of the death of Jesus Christ, which thought so 
wearied him that he killed himself over it. This 
action on his part proves him to have been a man of 
conscientiousness and feeling, though he should not 
have done this, for he was not the cause of that death. 
I fully concur with Mr. Mosheim(i) in his statement 
that the death of Christ was purely voluntary upon 
his part. And further I maintain that it is proved 
that his death was voluntary, by both his actions 
and his words. 

i. If he, Christ, knew at the time that Peter would 
deny him before the cock crew, he also knew that 

i. See Mosheim’s History of Christianity ip the first three centuries, Yol 
h P- 2 37> 



20 4 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


this denial would be the outgrowth of Judas’ betrayal 
of his whereabouts, and that if he went back that night 
to Gethsemane’s garden, his whereabouts would 
be made known to his enemies, and that his arrest 
and death would follow. Yet with all this informa¬ 
tion he makes no attempt to evade them. He could 
have evaded them, for he had influential and wealthy 
friends living in the city, who would have felt hon¬ 
ored to protect him that night, but he did not go nor 
offer to go to them. On the contrary he went to his 
accustomed place, where everybody knew he was 
in the habit of going, for St. Luke says, “And he came 
out, and went as he was wont, to the mount of Olives, 
and his disciples followed him.” Luke xxii:39. Know¬ 
ing what was to follow. 

2. Christ never charged any man with his death, 
for he had said, “Therefore doth my Father love me 
because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of my¬ 
self—I have power to lay it down and I have power 
to take it again. This commandment have I received 
of my Father.” John x: 17, 18. 

I understand by the foregoing language that Jesus 
Christ had said to his apostles, that no man could, 
or no man would take his life from him. It reads 
that way, and in fact that is what he said. Under¬ 
standing it that way myself, I am willing to concede 
the fact that Judas may have understood it likewise. 
If he did so understand it, then how could it be possible 
for him to think that any act of his could terminate 
in the death of Christ? The language precludes the 
possibilty of hi? entertaining such a thought, 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


205 


Christ volunteered to die, and by that death atone 
for the sins of all the world for all time, who should 
accept that atonement. And I think that if the vin¬ 
dictive and bitter denunciations that have been hurled 
at this poor, crazy, heart-broken, sorrow-stricken Ju¬ 
das, had been turned into calm and deliberate med¬ 
itation and study as to why it was, it would have been 
spent in a manner more becoming a Christian and 
also more pleasing in the estimation of the Judge of 
all things. 

We are all interested in the death of Jesus Christ, 
and not his life. For by that death he opened the 
gateway to our salvation which could only be opened 
by his death and blood. Consequently I, as a be¬ 
liever in him, can only say that I am glad he met 
that death as he did, since it was ordained from on 
high that he should die, nor do I censure any of the 
immediate causes thereof. 

Of Judas’ death we know really more than of his 
life, and from the manner of that death, we can 
clearly see that he did not betray Christ for the pur¬ 
pose of having him killed. For the reason that he 
stayed with Christ until the death-sentence was pro¬ 
nounced upon him by Pontius Pilate, and as soon as 
this was done, he was so badly grieved over it that 
he soon afterward destroyed himself. He was the 
first man in the whole party of apostles who lost his 
life. 

What his motives were in receiving this money and 
betraying Christ, is altogether theory and specula¬ 
tion, The Catholic Bible says that he made this 


206 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


contract with the enemies of Christ to betray him, 
on Wednesday, though it was not carried into execu¬ 
tion until the following Thursday night. 

As all of the historians see fit to give their views 
and theories as to why Judas did this, and scarcely 
any two of them agree, perhaps it would not be out 
of place for me to give mine, and I will now do so. 

Judas Iscariot had been with Jesus Christ for a 
long time. He had seen him do and perform acts 
which none other than God himself could do, which 
had proved to him that Christ was none other than 
God in human form. He had just seen Christ make his 
triumphal entry into Jerusalem, and saw that city 
shaken to its center by his coming. This triumphal 
entry was fresh upon his mind, for it was on Sunday 
morning before the betrayal on the following Thurs¬ 
day night. He evidently felt that the time for Christ’s 
receiving his crowning glory was at hand. And feel¬ 
ing so, he must also have felt that no act of his 
could redound to the detriment or harm of him, 
should he choose to ward it off. 

From the time of this triumphal entry into Jerusa¬ 
lem, until the night of betrayal, he was no doubt 
loitering around Jerusalem, and while thus engaged, 
some of the enemies of Christ made the proposition 
to him, to give him thirty pieces of silver if he would 
disclose to them his whereabouts. He, Judas, not 
dreaming of subjecting Christ to any danger, agreed 
to it, and took the money, and then, on the agreed 
time, met and went along with them, and pointed him 
out to them. I think that he thought that on the next 


JUDAS ISC A Riot 


20? 


morning he would see that whole Sanhedrim, Pilate 
and the rest, converted, and confess Christ—that 
by his taking the money from them he would really, 
in consideration for it, put them in such close prox¬ 
imity to Christ, that they would all be converted by 
him. Bu* his plans failed him, and with his poor 
feeble human nature, he was unable to stand the 
shock, and in a fit of craziness destroyed himself. I 
think that in this instance, Judas meant well, though 
it turned out otherwise. It was his unpleasant task 
to do what he had been assigned to do; and as for 
my part I cannot see how he was to avoid it. For 
the prophecies concerning his act of betrayal are 
nearly as old and as authentic as those announcing 
the coming of the Saviour. 

Whatever may have been the secret spring that 
pushed this man on to do this deed on the one hand, 
and what alluring hope or hopes drew him on to do 
it upon the other, now and forever must lie as twins, 
vaulted away in the unfathomed darkness of the past. 
His repentance, his returning the money and his 
proclaiming the innocence of Jesus, all go to prove 
that he blamed himself with the evil done. But 
shall he be forever and eternally damned for this? 
Who and how many of us have not at some period of 
our lives wronged a being either directly or indirectly, 
and when we saw the result, have, like this man, set 
about to try to undo the wrong done? And like him 
offered the relief too late. Yet we are told by both 
the ministry and the blessed word of God, that it is 
never too late for us to repent of the wrong done. 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


208 

Then if there is a chance for us, why not one also 
for poor Judas? Let us examine the sacred writings 
ourselves and see what is said of him there, upon 
which we can base a hope for his ultimate salvation. 

Let us now notice the exact reading of the differ¬ 
ent passages in the New Testament concerning the 
salvation and rewards, that are promised to the 
twelve apostles as suck. And in doing this I ask you 
to carefully note my quotations and see that I quote 
them correctly, and further I ask you to see that I do 
not squeeze and torture the words taken from the 
New Testament, to make them fit my individual mold 
of mind. For be it far from me to either missquote, or 
having quoted, misinterpret its meaning and intended 
application. You agree with me so far. Very good 
then; we will proceed. 

I now invite your attention to the reading of Matt, 
xix: 27, 28, and 29. But before reading this, let me 
say by way of explanation that from the best data I 
can command, this conversation occurred between 
Christ and St. Peter in the early part of the year 
A. D. 33, probably in the month of January. And I 
will further say, in order that you may fully understand 
this conversation, that it is based upon three years’ 
servitude by the twelve apostles. That Peter seem¬ 
ingly contemplated a dissolution of the apostolic body 
soon(i), and while they are all yet living and are 
quietly assembled together, he as a business man 

1. See what I say in the chapter on Peter at the time that he and St. John 
went with Mary Magdalene to the sepulcher in the morning to see if the Saviour 
was really risen, page 60. 


jUDAS IS CA Rid t && 

raised this question for the purpose of having it set * 
tied while all parties are still living and psesent. 

Note his question, Matt. xix:27: “Then answered 
Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken 
all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefor.'* 
Mark the answer, v. 28: “And Jesus said unto niin, 
Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed 
me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall 
sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon 
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” 

Now in the above we see that Peter has asked a 
question, and that he asked it for the whole twelve, 
for he uses the plural “we.” We further see that 
Christ, in his answer to Peter, answers all twelve and 
no one else, for he says twelve. L*t us see further why 
he promised this and when the promise is to be met: 
Take his language, “ye which have followed,” putting 
it in the past tense, showing that for something already 
done by them he obligates himself to do this at a fut¬ 
ure time, for he says, “When the Son of man shall 
sit,” putting it clearly in the future tense, then he will 
reward them. He also says how many will be the 
recipients of this particular reward, “twelve,” and no 
more. 

In order to show that I am right in my construction 
of this matter, and that this promise made by Christ 
was made to the twelve apostles and to no one else, I 
will introduce the twenty-ninth verse to show that 
he, by way of edifying the apostles further, went on 
and told them what he would also do for another 
class of people as contra-distinguished from them. 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


m 

V. 29. “And every one that hath forsaken houses, 
or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, 
or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall 
receive a hundred-fold, and shall inherit everlasting 
life.” 

From the foregoing we see that Christ here obli¬ 
gates himself to reward two separate and distinct 
classes of people, and that the rewards vary. To 
the chosen twelve he promises that when he 
hath come into his kingdom, they shall sit upon 
twelve thrones, and that judgment shall be given to 
them. To the other class he promises a return of a 
hundred-fold, perhaps meant for this life, and life 
everlasting. 

Trusting now that you understand the above, I will 
leave it and call your attention to another passage, 
Luke xxii:28-30. Again I want you to particularly 
understand the situation. It is night, and just after 
Christ has taken the sacrament supper with all twelve 
of his apostles. Judas Iscariot may or may not as 
yet have left the party of apostles for the purpose of 
informing the enemies of Christ as to his whereabouts. 
Christ speaks, and he speaks this time of his own in¬ 
clination. He is not led out on this occasion as before, 
by a question. He speaks voluntarily. What says he? 
v. 28: “Ye are they which have continued with me in 
my temptations; v. 29: And I appoint unto you a king¬ 
dom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; v. 30: 
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my king¬ 
dom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel.” 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


211 


In this as in the former instance he says that 
twelve thrones must be sat upon; and common sense 
teaches us that it will take twelve persons to sit 
upon twelve thrones. Here then we see that Christ 
is not only promising them salvation, but is prepar¬ 
ing and promising them extra seats of honor and 
distinction. And it is for twelve, and for no other 
number. 

From the foregoing you see that Jesus Christ while 
on earth did promise his twelve apostles that they 
should inhabit his kingdom with him. Nor does he 
stop here, but goes farther and promises them as his 
twelve apostles , that they shall occupy twelve thrones 
in that kingdom, and that the distinguishing honor of 
being judges shall be there conferred upon them. 

Let us next pass on to the Book of Revelations, 
and before we begin to note its passages, let me say 
to you that the contents of this Book is what St. 
John says that he saw while in banishment on the 
island of Patmos. He gives a minute description of 
a great many things which he saw there, and vouches 
for the correctness of his statement. I will further 
acquaint you with the fact, that at the time he 
witnessed this Revelation on this island it was 
either A. D. 96 or 97, and consequently either sixty- 
three or sixty-four years after Christ had made the 
above promise to his apostles. He, John, was at this 
time an old man and the last one of the twelve apos¬ 
tles living. He had been the last one of that number 
on earth for many years. What does he say that he 
saw when that wonderful Revelation was made to 

him? _ 

14 


212 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


Read Rev. xx:4: “And I saw thrones, and they 
sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; 
and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded 
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, 
and which had not worshiped the beast, neither 
his image, neither had received his mark upon 
their foreheads, or in their hands; and they 
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” 
Here John says that somebody was sitting upon 
thrones, and that judgment was given to them, and 
that they reigned with Christ. Which is to say that 
they ruled with Christ. 

Take next Rev. xxi:i4. What says he here? “And 
the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in 
them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” 
The Catholic Bible renders this verse in this language: 
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations; 
and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles 
of the Lamb.” 

Here St. John says that he saw the heavenly 
Caanan, or as some describe it, the New Jerusalem, 
and that he did recognize upon the twelve pillars or 
foundations of that heavenly city, the names of the 
twelve , not twelve apostles, but “ the twelve apostles 
of the Lamb.” 

-Should it be asked what twelve names these were, 
I would refer you to Lukevi:i3. There you will find 
their names and also find that Christ selected them 
out of a large congregation of disciples that were 
present. That after he had so chosen them 
these “twelve whom also he named apostles,” he 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


213 


continued to represent to the world as his apostles, 
and further, they were the only ones he ever so repre¬ 
sented. 

Now St. John says that he saw the names of these 
twelve men on the twelve foundations which he saw 
when he had heaven revealed to him. This would 
put the name of Judas Iscariot upon one of them. 
John also says that he saw thrones and that some¬ 
body was sitting upon them, and that judgment was 
given unto them; but does not say who they were 
who were sitting upon the thrones. I maintain that 
it was the eleven apostles who had already departed 
this life, for the reason that it had been promised to 
them that they should sit upon thrones in the heav¬ 
enly Caanan, and they the twelve , are the only ones 
that Jesus Christ ever made such a promise to. This 
then puts Judas Iscariot, at the time that John had 
his vision, upon a throne in heaven, with the power of 
judgment conferred upon him. 

I am glad that I have found so much scripture, 
and that in such pointed and strong language, bear¬ 
ing so directly upon this point. I believe that Judas 
was saved, and that these honors were conferred upon 
him. And I am glad that I do believe it, for it coin¬ 
cides with my idea of Christ and his mercy. I further 
believe that Christ availed himself of this particular 
opportunity to show these things to John. The occa¬ 
sion, the time and the circumstances, under which 
John saw it, strongly suggest it to my mind. 

John w^s the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” He is 
now old and feeble—he is in lonely banishment—all 


214 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


of his brother apostles have gone before him. Jesus 
had said “Lo I am with you alway,” and being with 
him manifests his presence and power by drawing 
aside the curtain and saying to the old man: Look yon¬ 
der; you see your brother apostles seated upon the 
thrones that I promised them; you see those, once 
poor men and women, who were “beheaded for the 
witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,” and others 
still “that hath forsaken houses, brethren, sisters, 
father, mother, wife, children, or lands for my name’s 
sake,” all basking and bathing to their souls’ content 
in the everlasting blessings I said they should have. 
Write these things, John, which you now behold, in 
your Book, that all men at all ages of the world may 
know that 1 , Jesus Christ, will comply as literally with 
every promise I have ever made to them, as L have 
with this one I made to you apostles and my disciples 
while on earth. 

How consoling this must have been to the aged 
apostle; and yet not more so than to you, my aged 
brother or sister of to-day. You may be old and 
poor as John vyas. You may have spent the prime 
of your life, as he did, in prayers and supplications 
for those who now banish you from their affections or 
thoughts, yet like him lent your time, your influence 
and presence to the upbuilding of the cause of Chris¬ 
tianity. The grave may now hold all or nearly all 
that was dear to you. Your friends may have for¬ 
saken you. Your children may not have meted out 
that measure which you thought they ought and 
hoped they would. But should all or any of these 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


215 


things bother you, let me say to you to be of good 
cheer. The veil, which now shuts off your vision from 
the same blessed scene which John saw, is a thin one. 
Soon must its gauzy curtain disappear from before 
you, when the full joys and blessings offered by the 
Redeemer will dawn to you. Let us then, like the 
old apostle, only hold ourselves in readiness for the 
coming hour. And we, like wearied travelers, who 
have journeyed along a long and rugged road, will, 
just before fagging and falling in the dust, be sud¬ 
denly picked up and placed upon strong and swift 
steeds that shall bear us safely on to the port of life 
everlasting and peace never ceasing—where every 
promise that Jesus has ever made to us, will be as 
literally fulfilled as was this one to his twelve apostles. 

This may, and no doubt does, seem strange to those 
who think and are persistent in that thought, that 
Judas was lost. But to such I would say, that while 
there are passages in the Bible which, taken and con¬ 
strued alone, would tend strongly to show that he 
was lost, yet this is not the way to construe them. 
All that is said of him should be taken together, in 
order to give his case a fair and unbiased decision. 
The strongest language ever used against him I have 
declined to mention, for the reason that I put the 
explanation of it at the end of this chapter, in the 
language of that able scholar, Adam Clarke. I hope 
that his explanation of Matt. xxvi:4, “Woe unto that 
man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It had 
been good for that man if he had not been born ” will 
be satisfactory. 


216 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


We should never forget the fact that St. Matthew, 
who, by the way is the only apostle, who gives any 
account of the manner of that death, says that “he 
repented” before he died. Are we then, in the face of 
all the foregoing, to say that this repentance spoken 
of by St. Matthew only referred to the act of betray¬ 
al, and not to his sins in general? Remember the 
thief who died upon the cross the same day, and that 
his repentance, like that of Judas, only preceded his 
death a very short time; yet our Lord promised him 
salvation. 

We should not wonder at this, for these things, 
though happening on the closing day of our Lord’s 
ministry upon earth, were nevertheless his doings. 
There were many things to be done, and the time 
for doing them was limited. The pardoning of the 
thief, the darkening of the sun, the rending of the 
veil of the temple, and raising of the dead from other 
graves, were simply all acts that required a suspen¬ 
sion of the rule, in order that bills might pass upon 
their first reading. 

Mr. Clarke, in his commentaries on Acts, in a note 
at the end of chapter first says: 

“I. It must be allowed that his crime was one of 
the most inexcusable ever committed by man; never¬ 
theless, it has some alleviations, i. It is possible 
that he did not think his Master could be hurt by the 
Jews. 2. When he found that he did not use his 
power to extricate himself from their hands, he 
deeply repented that he had betrayed him. 3. He 
gave every evidence of the sincerity of his repentance, 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


217 


by going openly to the Jewish rulers; confessing 
his own guilt; asserting the innocence of Christ; 
returning the money which he had received from them; 
and then, the genuineness of his regret was proved 
by its being the cause of his death.” 

“But, II. Judas might have acted a much worse 
part than he did: i. By persisting in his wickedness. 
2. By slandering the character of our Lord both to 
the Jewish rulers and to the Romans; and, had he 
done so, his testimony would have been credited, and 
our Lord would then have been put to death as a 
malefactor, on the testimony of one of his own disci¬ 
ples; and thus the character of Christ and his gospel 
must have suffered extremely in the sight of the 
world, and these very circumstances would have been 
pleaded against the authenticity of the Christian 
religion by every infidel in all succeeding ages. And 3. 
Had he persisted in his evil way, he might have 
lighted such a flame of persecution against the infant 
cause of Christianity as must, without the intervention 
of God, have ended in its total destruction: now he 
neither did, nor endeavored to do, any of these 
things. In other cases these would be powerful 
pleadings.” 

“Judas was indisputably a bad man, but he might 
have been worse; we may plainly see that there were 
depths of wickedness to which he might have pro¬ 
ceeded, and which were prevented by his repentance. 
Thus things appear to stand previously to his end. 
But is there any room for hope in his death? In 
answer to this it must be understood, 1. That there 


218 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


is a presumptive evidence that he did not destroy 
himself; and, 2. That his repentance was sincere. If 
so, was it not possible for the mercy of God to ex¬ 
tend even to his case? It did so to the murderers of 
the Son of God; and they were certainly worse men 
(strange as this assertion may appear) than Judas. 
Even he gave them the fullest proof of Christ’s inno¬ 
cence; their buying the field with the money Judas 
threw down was the full proof of it; and yet, with 
every convincing evidence before them, they crucified 
our Lord. They excited Judas to betray his Master, 
and crucified him when they had got him into their 
power; and therefore St. Stephen calls them both the 
betrayers and murderers of that Just One: Acts vii: 
52. In these respects they were more deeply criminal 
than Judas himself; yet even to those very betrayers 
and murderers Peter preaches repentance, with the 
promise of remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy 
Ghost: Acts iii: 12-26. If then these were within the 
reach of mercy, and we are informed that a great 
company of the priests became obedient to the faith, 
Acts vi:7, then certainly Judas was not in such a 
state as precluded the possibility of his salvation. 
Surely the blood of the covenant could wash out even 
his stain, as it did that more deeply engrained one 
of the other betrayers and murderers of the Lord 
Jesus.” 

“Should the twenty-fifth verse be urged against this 
possibility, because it is there said that Judas fell from 
his ministry and apostleship, that he might go to his 
own place, and that this place is hell; I answer, 1, 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


219 


It remains to be proved that this place means hell; 
and 2. It is not clear that the words are spoken of 
Judas at all, but of Matthias: his own place meaning 
that vacancy in the apostolate to which he was then 
elected. See the note on ver. 25. 

“To say that the repentance of Judas was merely 
the effect of his horror, that it did not spring from 
compunction of heart, that it was legal, and not 
evangelical, etc., etc., is saying what none can with 
propriety say, but God himself who searches the 
heart. What renders his case most desperate are the 
words of our Lord, Matt, xxvr.24; “Woe unto that 
man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It had 
been good for that man if he had not been born.” 
I have considered this saying in a general point of 
view in my note on Matt. xxvi:24, and were it not a 
proverbial form of speech among the Jews to express 
the state of any flagrant trangressor, I should be led 
to apply it in all its literal import to the case of 
Judas, as I have done in the above note, to the case 
of any damned soul; but when I find that it was a 
proverbial saying, and that it has been used in many 
cases where the fixing of the irreversible doom of a 
sinner is not implied, it may be capable of a more 
favorable interpretation than what is generally given 
to it. I shall produce a few of those examples from 
Schoetten, to which I have referred in my note on 
Matt. xxvi:24.” 

“In Chagigah, fol. ii. 2, it is said: ‘Whosoever 
considers these four things, it would have been better 
for him had he never come into the world, viz: That 


220 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


which is above—that which is below—that which is 
before—and that which is behind; and whosoever 
does not attend to the honor of his Creator, it were 
better for him had he never been born. ’ 

“In Shemoth Rabba, sect. 40, fol. cxxxv., 1, 2, 
it is said: ‘Whosoever knows the law, and does not 
do it, it had been better for him had he never come 
into the world.” 

“In Vayikra Rabba, sect. 36, fol. clxxix, 4, and 
Midrash Cohbleth, fol. xci, 4, it is thus ex¬ 
pressed: ‘It were better for him had he never been 
created; and it would have been better for him had 
he been strangled in the womb, and never have seen 
the light of this world. ’ 

“In Sohar Genes, fol. lxxi, col. 282,it is said: ‘If any 
man be. parsimonious toward the poor, it had been bet¬ 
ter for him had he never come into the world.’ Ibid, 
fol. lxxxiv, col. 333: ‘If any performs the law, not for 
the sake of the law, it were good for that man had he 
never been created. ’ These examples sufficiently prove 
that this was a common proverb, and is used with 
a great variety and latitude of meaning, and seems 
intended to show that the case of such and such 
persons was not only very deplorable, but extremely 
dangerous; but does not imply the positive impos¬ 
sibility either of their repentance or salvation. 

“The utmost that can be said for the case of Judas 
is this: he committed a heinous act of sin and ingrat¬ 
itude, but he repented and did what he could to undo 
his wicked act; he had committed the sin unto death, 
i. e. a sin that involves the death of the body; but 


JUDAS ISCARIOT 


221 


who can say (if mercy was offered to Christ’s mur¬ 
derers, and the gospel was first to be preached at 
Jerusalem that these very murderers might have the 
first offer of salvation through him whom they had 
pierced) that the same mercy could not be extended 
to the wretched Judas? I contend that the chief priests, 
etc., who instigated Judas to deliver up his Master, 
and who crucified him—and who crucified him too as 
a malefactor—having at the same time the most in¬ 
dubitable evidence of his innocence, were worse than 
Judas Iscariot himself; and that, if mercy was ex¬ 
tended to those, the wretched penitent traitor did not 
die out of the reach of the yearning of its bowels. 
And I contend, farther, that there is no positive evi¬ 
dence of the final damnation of Judas, in the sacred 
text.” 













X 





















\ 







MATTHIAS 
















% 



t 




MATTHIAS 


This man Matthias was elected an apostle to fill 
the vacancy caused by the death of Judas Iscariot. 
He was elected by a number of Christian people who 
were assembled together in Jerusalem for the purpose 
of worship, and perhaps for the further purpose of 
filling the vacancy in the apostolic body. The precise 
day of his election is not given, though we know that 
it was between the Ascension and the day of Pente¬ 
cost. 

As to who he was, we are left in complete dark¬ 
ness, other than that he was one of the seventy dis¬ 
ciples^). As he, like St. Paul, was an apostle out 
of due season, we will have to investigate his claims 
to the office of apostle, before we can class him as 
one. There was at the meeting at which he was 
elected 120 persons who voted(2). Out of this 
number there were eleven apostles voting. Hence, 
unless we will admit that any and every body who 
claimed to be a Christian had the right to vote in 
elections being held for the purpose of keeping the 
apostolic number up to twelve, we are forced to the 
conclusion that there were 109 illegal votes cast in 

1. Smith’s Bible Dictionary, unabridged. 


225 


7 Kitto, p. 63* 


226 


MATTHIAS 


that election. And further, if we are to look to the 
Bible for the authority of these eleven apostles to fill 
that vacancy, we will be forced to the conclusion that 
the whole matter was illegal. Further, if they had 
the right to do this, it must also have been obligatory 
in its character for them to do so, and if it was obliga¬ 
tory upon them to fill one vacancy, it appears that it 
would also be binding upon them to fill others; but we 
do not find where they ever offered to fill another 
vacancy^caused in the apostolic ranks. Hence they 
either exceeded their authority in the first instance or 
else neglected their duty in the latter. 

There is also some question as to what powers the 
eleven apostles thought the newly-elected one pos¬ 
sessed. The language used leaves a doubt as to 
whether they regarded him as fully possessed of all 
the powers conferred upon them or not. In Acts 
i: 26, we find this language, “and he was numbered 
with the eleven apostles.” This is the language of 
Luke, and he is now speaking of what happened just 
after the election. That is to say they, the 120, num¬ 
bered him with the eleven. This numbering him with 
them would not —ipso facto —make him an apostle, 
any more so than the numbering of Jesus Christ with 
the trangressors would of itself make him a transgress¬ 
or. Therefore I am inclined to the opinion that his 
being numbered with them only meant that he was 
accorded the privileges of accompanying them and 
being present and witnessing their miraculous works 
and doing whatever else he could to aid the work 
being done by them. 


Matthias 


22 7 

Again in Acts ii: 14, it is said that “Peter standing 
up with the eleven, he lifted up his voice,” etc. I con¬ 
strue this to mean that there were only eleven in all, 
who stood up. They were standing up for the pur- 
. pose of preaching to the vast crowds that were assem- 
: bled around them in Jerusalem on the day of Pente¬ 
cost, to hear what they had to say about the validity 
of the many rumors then current in the city and 
country concerning the risen Redeemer. If I am 
right in my construction of this language, and it is 
true that only eleven of them did stand up and take 
their turn at speaking upon this important occasion, 
would it not appear as if the twelfth one did not feel 
himself authorized to take a full part in the discus¬ 
sion? Further, as the principal question before them 
that day was, had Jesus really risen from the dead, 
it might be that this man could not say, as he in all 
probability had not seen him after his resurrection. 
As to whether I am right or not in this matter of his 
. not standing up and taking part in the proceedings 
that day, I will leave for the reader to determine. I 
confess to be alone in it, as none of the commenta¬ 
tors that I have ever seen have ever raised the ques¬ 
tion. 

He took an active part in the ministry, devoting the 
whole of his energies and powers to the upbuilding of 
Christianity, as many other good men did at the time, 
and did much good, but this does not make an apos¬ 
tle of him. I do not think that any one ever filled 
the vacancy in the apostolic ranks caused by the death 
of Judas Iscariot. Nor do I think that Jesus Christ 
15 



228 MATTHIAS 

ever intended for it to be filled, for the reason that he 
was himself on earth after the death of Judas, and 
knew of that death and of the vacancy it had caused, 
and could have made another appointment if he had 
seen fit to do so. But he did not do so, and for that 
reason I am of the opinion that he did not want it 
done. For these reasons I must say that I cannot 
accept him as an apostle. 

After the day of Pentecost he remained in Judea 
for a year, during which time he traveled from place 
to place and preached to the people. During this 
time he converted large numbers of them to Chris¬ 
tianity. He further assisted in organizing them into 
congregations, and establishing themselves in local 
churches and prescribing rules and regulations for 
their government(i). At the expiration of this 
year’s service in Judea, he left that country and went 
East to Ethiopia, as the field of his future opera¬ 
tions. He there traveled and preached to the people 
of that country until his death. Just how long this 
was, we do not know. Yet the historians say that 
he did much in planting Christianity in that, and in 
some of the adjacent countries. He was, however, 
at last apprehended by the rulers of that country, and, 
after a brief trial, condemned and sentenced to death. 
His death was by being first stoned and then be¬ 
headed. There are two accounts of his death, one 
fixing it at Ethiopia and the other in Cappadocia 
(2). Yet while they differ as to the country in which 


1. Fleetwood, p. 527. 

2. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 


Matthias m 

he met his death, they agree as to the manner of that 
death. He evidently operated the most of the time 
by himself. We do not see much of him anywhere 
except in history, and but briefly there. His name 
is mentioned but one time in the New Testament, 
Acts i: 26. There was an Apocryphal gospel pub¬ 
lished under his name, and Eusebius and Clement of 
Alexandria quote in their writings from the Traditions 
of Matthias(i). 

This is briefly all that we know of this man. We 
cannot find any family relations for him. While I 
mention him here, I do so because I find him so 
closely associated with the apostles as to demand a 
notice. 


i. Smith’s Bible Dictionary. 







FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 






FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


Flavius Josephus was a Jew by birth. He was 
born in the city of Jerusalem in the year A. D. 37. 
The family of which he was a descendant were of 
the priesthood of Judea, and had been for many gen¬ 
erations. He spent his youth and boyhood in that 
city in the acquirement of that knowledge and educa¬ 
tion which caused him in after years to become so 
prominent in the affairs of his country. In order to 
give a view of his early life, I will quote what he him¬ 
self says of himself: 

“I. The family from which I am derived is not an 
ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the 
first; and, as nobility among several people is of a 
different origin, so with us to be of the sacerdotal dig¬ 
nity is an indication of the splendor of a family. 
Now I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family 
in general, but from the first of the twenty-four 
courses; and, as among us there is not only a con- 


Note.—M y reason for introducing the following extracts from Josephus is 
that I wish to acquaint my readers with what he said concerning several indi¬ 
viduals mentioned in the New Testament, and also to acquaint you with the 
further fact that he was one among the most prominent men of his time His 
writings are so antiquated and dry that but few people of to-day care to read 
them at all. Yfet while they are dry, stale, and distasteful to us in many respects, 
they should not be ignored on that account. They are of great antiquity, and 
also of great authority, with our most learned men of all the ages since their 
production. 


231 


232 


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


siderable difference between one family of each course 
and another, I am of the chief family of that first 
course also; nay, farther, by my mother I am of the 
royal blood, for the children of Asamoneus,from whom 
that family was derived, had both the office of the 
high-priest and the dignity of a king for a long time 
together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors 
in order. My grandfather’s father was named Simon 
with the addition of Psellus; he lived at the same 
time with that son of Simon the high-priest, who first 
of all the high-priests was named Hyrcanus. This 
Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Mat¬ 
thias, called Ephlias; he married the daughter of Jon¬ 
athan the high priest, which Jonathan was the first 
of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high-priest and 
was the brother of Simon the high-priest also. This 
Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtis, and that 
in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus; his 
son’s name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of 
the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in 
the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus; as was I 
born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius 
Cassar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, 
was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian, 
as was Justus born in the seventh, and Agrippa in the 
ninth. 

' “Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family 
as I have found it described in the public records, 
and so bid adieu to those who caluminate me as of a 

*lower origin. 

“II. Now my father Matthias was not only emi- 


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


233 


nent on account of his nobility, but had a higher 
commendation on account of his righteousness, and 
was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the greatest city 
we have. I was myself brought up with my brother 
whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother 
by both father and mother; and I made mighty pro¬ 
ficiency in the improvements of my learning, and 
appeared to have both a great memory and under¬ 
standing. Moreover, when I was a child, and about 
fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for 
the love I had to learning; on which account the 
high-priest and principal men of the city came then 
frequently to me together, in order to know my opin¬ 
ion about the accurate understanding of points of the 
law; and when I was about sixteen years old, I had 
a mind to make trial of the several sects that were 
among us. These sects are three: the first is that of 
the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and 
the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently 
told you; for I thought that by this means I might 
choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them 
all; so I contented myself with hard fare and under¬ 
went great difficulties, and went through them all. 
Nor did I content myself with these trials only; but 
when I was informed that one, whose name was 
Banus, lived in the desert and used no other clothing 
than grew upon trees, and had no other food than 
what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in 
cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in 
order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those 
things, and continued with him three years. So when 


234 


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


I had accomplish^ my desires, I returned back to 
the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to 
conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of 
the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, 
as the Greeks call them. 

“HI. But when I was in the twenty-sixth year of 
my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome; 
and this on the occasion which I shall now describe. 
At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea, 
there were certain priests of my acquaintance, and 
very excellent persons they were, whom on a small 
and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent 
to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar. These 
I was desirous to procure deliverance for; and that 
especially because I was informed that they were not 
unmindful of piety toward God, even under their 
afflictions, but supported themselves with figs and 
nuts. Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were 
through a great number of hazards by sea; for as our 
ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were 
in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for 
our lives all the night; when, upon the first appear¬ 
ance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of 
Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God’s 
providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up 
into the other ship; and when I had thus escaped, 
and was come to Dicearchia, which the Italians call 
Putcoli, I became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor 
of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by 
birth; and through his interest became known to 
Poppea, Caesar’s wife, and took care, as soon as pos- 


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


235 


sible, to entreat her to procure that the priests might 
be set at liberty; and when, besides this favor, I had 
obtained many presents from Poppea, I returned 
home again.” 

From this we see that at the age of twenty-six 
years Josephus was in Rome, pleading the cause of 
some of the leading men of Judea, who were held in 
bonds before the then-highest tribunal in the world, 
to wit: the court of Rome. He was evidently the 
choice of the people of Judea for this important work, 
or else he would not have undertaken it. He was 
also evidently qualified for so important an undertak¬ 
ing, for he succeeded in it. Nay, he further suc¬ 
ceeded in ingratiating nimself into the good graces of 
Poppea, the wife of Caesar. For, says he, she gave 
him many presents besides helping him to get his 
friends acquitted. From this we are to infer that he 
was not only a young man of superior ability, but one 
whose manners and general deportment won the ad¬ 
miration and esteem of the more cultivated and re¬ 
fined. From Rome he now returns home. This was 
in the year A. D. 63. On his arrival home at Jeru¬ 
salem, he found the city divided into three factions, 
and all at war with themselves. He at once made a 
powerful effort by canvassing the city and speaking to 
the people publicly, to quiet them. But all in vain. 
They grew worse and worse, until they broke out in 
open revolt against the Roman Government. Nero, 
the Emperor of Rome, then sent his army, command¬ 
ed by Cestius, to whip them back into subjection. 
But this plan of his failed, for when the Roman army 



23C 


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


reached Jerusalem, the Jews gave them battle and 
completely routed them and drove them back with 
heavy loss of life. Nor did the battle stop here; the 
Jews followed after them and kept up a continual 
fighting for several days, and pressed the Romans so 
hard, that they were forced to kill all their horses and 
either burn or leave their engines of war behind them, 
and by making forced night-marches through a moun¬ 
tainous country, made their escape. This defeat of 
the Roman army, in this instance, caused the Empe¬ 
ror Nero to prepare for war on a larger scale with the 
Jews, and to call forth an army sufficient to conquer 
them. This army he placed under the command of 
Vespasian, whom he considered the best general 
then in Rome. 

While things were going on in this manner at Rome, 
the Jews were likewise engaged in Judea. They saw 
now that their factions had involved the whole nation 
in a war with the Romans; and in order to meet it in 
the best way possible, they called for their ablest 
men to come to the front, and organize them for the 
coming conflict. In doing this, Josephus was made 
military governor of the states of Galilee and Gamala. 
As soon as he took upon himself the governorship of 
these states, he raised an army of one hundred thou¬ 
sand men, and armed them according to the military 
requirements of the times. He also fortified many of 
the strong places in Galilee, preparatory to the' com¬ 
ing contest. He commanded the army which he had 
raised, and meeting the Roman army commanded by 
Vespasian, fought the noted battle of Jotapata. At 


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


237 


this battle Josephus displayed a military genius that 
would be a credit to a general at any age of the world, 
though he lost the fight at last by being starved out. 
His army was destroyed, and he himself taken a pris¬ 
oner. He was held as a prisoner during the remainder 
of the war. Though a prisoner, he was present and 
an eye-witness of the final destruction of the city of 
Jerusalem, which occurred on the iothday of August, 
A. D. 70. How long it was after this before he wrote 
his history of the Jews, we do not know; but that it 
;was written afterward we do know; for in it he tells 
,us all about the destruction of the city. He died in 
the year A. D. 93, at the age of fifty-six years. I am 
not familiar with the place or manner of his death. 
In writing that history, he mentions three persons. I 
invite your attention to what he says concerning each 
of them. 

In his Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter iii, verse 3, 
he says—“Now there was about this time, Jesus, a 
wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he 
was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such 
men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew 
over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the 
Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at 
the suggestion of the principal men among us, had 
condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at 
the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them 
alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had 
foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful 
things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so 
named from him, are not extinct at this day.” 



238 


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter v, verse 2. He says 
of John the Baptist: “Now some of the Jews thought 
that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, 
and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did 
against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod 
slew him who was a good man and commanded the 
Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness to¬ 
ward one another, and piety toward God, and so to 
come to baptism; for that the washing (with water) 
would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, 
not in order to the putting away (or the remission) 
of some sins only, but for the purification of the 
body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly 
purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when 
(many) others came in crowds about him, for they 
were greatly moved (or pleased) by hearing his words, 
Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had 
over the people might put it into his power and incli¬ 
nation to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to 
do anything he should advise) thought best, by put¬ 
ting him to death, t'o prevent any mischief he might 
cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by spar¬ 
ing a man who might make him repent of it when it 
should be too late. Accordingly, he was sent a pris¬ 
oner out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, 
the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to 
death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the de¬ 
struction of his army was sent as a punishment upon 
Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure against him.” 

Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter ix, verse 1. He 
says, in speaking of James the Less, or James the 



Pi AVIVS JOSEPHUS 


just, as he is sometimes called, “And now Caesar, 
upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into 
Judea as procurator; but the king deprived Joseph of 
the high-priesthood, and bestowed the succession to 
that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also him¬ 
self called Ananus. Now the report goes, that this 
elder Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he 
had five sons, who had all performed the office of a 
high-priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that 
dignity a long time formerly, which had never hap¬ 
pened to any other of our high-priests; but this 
younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, 
took the high-priesthood, was a bold man in his tem¬ 
per, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the 
Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, 
above all the rest, the Jews, as we have already ob¬ 
served; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposi¬ 
tion, he thought he had now a proper opportunity (to 
exercise his authority). Festus was now dead, and 
Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the 
Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the 
brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name 
was James, and some others (or some of his compan¬ 
ions); and when he had formed an accusation against 
them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be 
stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equi¬ 
table of the citizens and such as were the most uneasy 
at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was 
done; they also sent to the king (Agrippa), desiring 
him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, 
for that what he had already done was not to be jus- 


240 FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 

tified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, 
as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and in¬ 
formed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to 
assemble a Sanhedrim without his consent; where¬ 
upon Albnius complied with what they said, and wrote 
in anger to Ananus and threatened that he would 
bring him to punishment for what he had done; on 
which King Agrippa took the high-priesthood from 
him, when he had ruled but three months, and made 
Jesus, the son of Danmeus, high-priest.” 

I have now quoted from Josephus in two instances. 
In both I have quoted him correctly. In the first, 
he certainly satisfies the average, fair-minded man, 
that he was descended from a good family, and that 
he took a great pride in maintaining his family record. 
This then, by the rule by which we estimate a man’s 
integrity, would place him, in our estimation, on the 
side of truth and honesty. Furthermore, in support 
of this conclusion, we find throughout all of his writ¬ 
ings, frequent expressions from him, of an admiration, 
love, and veneration for the truth in all things. 

Secondly: From his language there can be no doubt 
in our minds that he looked upon Jesus Christ as a 
Divine Being. That he regarded him as the long- 
promised Messiah. This was, however, an acknowl¬ 
edgment upon his part that was detrimental to his in¬ 
terest, in that priesthood to which he was so warmly 
attached by the laws of affinity, and strongly bound 
by the ties of self and family interest; and he knew 
it. Yet so great was his veneration and love for the 
truth, that he, in writing of his then-greatest political 


PLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


24l 


enemy, tells the truth of his own convictions. By 
this honest confession of his, we of to-day, know what 
the greatest general, and as profound a statesman as 
Judea ever had, and perhaps as great a historian as 
the World ever had, thought of the Divinity of Jesus 
Christ—that is, that he was Divine. 

Concerning John the Baptist, he says that “some 
of the Jews” were of the opinion that Herod’s army 
was destroyed by the act of God, on account of him, 
Herod, having had John the Baptist killed. This 
class of Jews who thought this, evidently regarded 
John the Baptist as being divinely sent, and divinely 
guarded upon his mission. Yet, while* Josephus does 
not say that he himself was among the Jews who 
thought so, he does not say that he was not; and we 
might with propriety infer that he was of the opinion 
of “some of the Jews,” from the high esteem in which 
he holds both them and Christ. At least he had 
enough respect for the opinion of the Jews who did 
think so, to make mention of it in his history; and 
to add further, that they were of the most equitable 
and law-abiding class of the people. 

In speaking of James the Less, while he does not 
say that he was a good man, in direct terms, as he did 
of John the Baptist, he does in an indirect way show 
him to have been a most excellent man. For he 
says that Ananus, the man who had him killed, was 
a “bold man in his temper, and very insolent,” and 
shows that the execution of James threw the people 
into great confusion; so much so, that some of them 
went to the king for relief; while others went to meet 


PLAVIUS JOSEPHUS 


24$ 

Albinus, the incoming governor, to inform him how 
Ananus was unlawfully assembling the Sanhedrim, and 
having men killed without authority. 

When this new governor arrived and took his seat, 
he too seems to side with the people as did the king, 
for they immediately dispossessed this man Ananus 
of all his priestly powers, and set him adrift. So, 
judging from the manner in which the king, governor, 
and people generally were aggrieved over the death 
of James as narrated by Josephus, we are forced to the 
opinion that Josephus himself had a high regard for 
James. 

Summing it all up, these are strong confessions, 
voluntarily made by a man, for whose opinion I have 
a high regard. 

















